Organizational Rankings
As we talked about in the Seeds of Success post the other day, there are a lot of organizations that are moving forward with efficient, highly successful philosophies and are putting their teams in a great position to win a lot of the games in the future. Which teams are doing this better than others?
Here is my take. This is based on management personnel and organizational cohesion, not on field talent or recent success. Essentially, this is my opinion of which organizations have laid the strongest foundation between their ownership, baseball operations department, and coaching staffs to insert a winning DNA into their baseball teams. I included a grade with the numerical ranking because, in a lot of cases, there’s no real difference between a few spots on the list.
Rank Organization Grade 1 Cleveland A+ 2 Boston A 3 Tampa Bay A 4 Milwaukee B+ 5 Oakland B+ 6 NY Yankees B 7 Detroit B 8 San Diego B 9 Arizona B- 10 Atlanta B- 11 NY Mets B- 12 Anaheim C+ 13 Colorado C+ 14 Minnesota C+ 15 Florida C 16 Chi. Sox C 17 Washington C 18 Toronto C- 19 Chi. Cubs C- 20 Los Angeles C- 21 Texas C- 22 Pittsburgh D 23 Seattle D 24 Philadelphia D 25 Kansas City D 26 St. Louis D 27 San Francisco F 28 Cincinnati F 29 Houston F 30 Baltimore F
No surprise here – I’ve been calling the Indians the best run organization in baseball for about four years, and that hasn’t changed. Boston is perfecting the big market, high salaried bully approach in contrast to Tampa’s load-up-on-cheap-talent philosophy, but both are the correct direction for their organizations to go in, considering their relative financial positions. The Brewers are quietly putting the pieces together to dominate the NL Central for the next decade, Billy Beane keeps doing his thing in Oakland while waiting for a new stadium, and the Yankees have transformed themselves into an organization with foresight, planning, and rationalization to go with their $200 million payroll. Scary.
On the other side of the coin, there’s a couple organizations that are going head first off the cliff at full speed. The Baltimore Orioles have a meddlesome owner, a front office that lacks necessary power, outdated analytical techniques, and, oh yea, they play in the A.L. East. Barring a one season fluke where everything just breaks right, I’m not sure Baltimore makes the playoffs in the next 10-15 years. If you’re raising a child near the nation’s capital, make them a Nationals fan.
Houston’s not a whole lot better, honestly. Meddlesome owner? Check. Retread failure of a GM? Check. Completely ignoring the farm system? Double Check. The Astros spent a mind-boggling $600,000 in signing bonuses in the first 11 rounds of this summer’s draft – combined. Houston spent about as much on the draft as the Mariners did on Matt Mangini. With some aging, overrated players tied up to long term contracts and no help on the way from the farm system, Houston’s poised to be terrible for a long, long time.
The Mariners come in 23rd, buoyed by their strength in amateur scouting and ownership’s commitment to giving the front office a payroll advantage over most of baseball. The front office? Well, we’ve covered their flaws in detail. Under Bill Bavasi, the Mariners have done a good job of resurrecting what was a horrible farm system, but their major league transactions have been brutal, and there isn’t a winning organizational philosophy in place.
So, if you’re a fan of the Indians, Devil Rays, Red Sox, or Brewers, you should be pretty happy with your club. If you’re allegiances lie with Baltimore, Houston, San Francisco, or Cincinnati, well, you might want to find something else to do with your summers for the next ten years or so.
Here’s a better sense of how I’m looking at it…
Let’s compare Oakland and Tampa Bay. Tampa is more exciting; Oakland is farther along in its lifecycle with a management team that has a better long-term track record. Tampa Bay has the edge in pure, raw, young talent, and if that is the only variable under consideration I would definitely rank them higher. But if the metric is:
…which organizations have laid the strongest foundation between their ownership, baseball operations department, and coaching staffs to insert a winning DNA into their baseball teams.
…then I can’t give an “A” grade to an organization that has yet to show me it can win.
If I have the opportunity to pick one organization’s management team and structure to transplant onto a team that I own, I go with Oakland over Tampa Bay because not only do I generally buy Billy Beane’s approach, he’s also shown me that he can take a team through every step of the process short of a World Series. He can acquire cheap talent via draft and trade, he can spot organizational weaknesses and fill them efficiently, and he can make midseason deals to shore up his team for a postseason push. All Tampa Bay has shown me now is the first of those points, and we have no idea if the management team is capable of taking Tampa Bay from where they are now to where they hope to go.
I know the Oakland management approach works, because I’ve seen it. I don’t have the requisite sample size of this Tampa Bay management team, so I can’t rank them ahead of an organization that I know can not only acquire talent cheaply and efficiently, but also turn that talent into a contending team.
Even though you’re ignoring parts of Dave’s criteria to argue his rankings, I’m not really sure how making Oakland #3 and Tampa #5 on your list effects the ultimate conclusion…..
Well, yes, your post is….
Well, when you’re grading the current Tampa Bay admin on the results of the past Tampa Bay admin, it really DOES imply that you don’t understand him. There’s a conceptual discconect there that simply hasn’t been explained.
How about this…take what THIS Tampa Bay management has DONE, and show how THAT isn’t worthy of getting an “A” grade. That means you don’t refer to the past 8 years of team performance—you have to grade on what this particular management has done, and not their predecessors have done.
And while referring to their life cycle certainly has some meaning, it really is irrelevant to the grade. Time on the job has nothing to do with their competence in getting their team ready for the future–that would mean Bavasi’s time gives him more fitness than the Tampa Bay people (which doesn’t make sense).
I can see what Bermanator is talking about, and it’s a point that could also apply to Atlanta, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and St. Louis. Given that all of these hires are relatively new, we don’t quite know enough about them. There’s a big difference between “we need more information” and “they’re not as good as you make them out to be.”
101:
And I think that’s the difference. Dave, through his network, has tons of access to additional information that the average USSM reader (including you) don’t have. That information allows him to grade them out higher faster than you will be able to because you are still using a result based method to evaluate the process, which is incorrect.
Here is how this conversation is going:
Dave: (some stuff)
Bermanator: But Tampa Bay hasn’t ever won anything.
Dave (and others): This list isn’t about past won-loss records.
Bermanator: But Tampa Bay hasn’t ever won anything.
Dave (and others): This list isn’t about past won-loss records.
Bermanator: But Tampa Bay hasn’t ever…
If you don’t think this is a valid way to evaluate teams, that’s cool, but by the criteria of the post, Tampa Bay is an excellent organization that has done a good job of building for future success.
You also have to take into account, when trying to evaluate the organization based on won-loss records, that it shares a division with teams that can spend four times their payroll, if not more.
Well, yes, your post is….
Dude, seriously. Should I respond with “I know you are but what am I?” or “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”? Sheesh.
How about this…take what THIS Tampa Bay management has DONE, and show how THAT isn’t worthy of getting an “A†grade.
What THIS Tampa Bay management has DONE is take the Devil Rays very well through step one of a multi-step process. They’ve done a fantastic job. Worthy of a high grade.
But the same grade as Boston, an organization much further along in the process? A lower grade than Oakland, an organization that’s much further along in the process?
I don’t agree. Tampa Bay, as an organization, is not far enough along in the process for me to rank them that high.
And I will stipulate that the management has only been in place for two years, if you stipulate that a good chunk of the talent was acquired before it took over, including its best player (Crawford) and best pitcher (Kazmir).
but by the criteria of the post, Tampa Bay is an excellent organization that has done a good job of building for future success.
Great. Just show me where Tampa Bay’s current management structure has shown the ability to achieve that kind of success on the Major League level, and I’ll go ahead and rank them ahead of Oakland.
Look, guys, if you had the ability to take Seattle’s management and replace it with any one, intact organizational structure, do you take Oakland’s or Tampa Bay’s? That’s all I’m asking.
Funny we should bring up Beane as an example of someone who you trust. Beane took control of the A’s in 1997. They lost 97 games in 1997, and 88 in 1998. They didn’t break .500 until ’99, and won the division in 2000, but that took 4 years of Beane’s management. You also have to consider that Beane took over for Sandy Alderson, who was a pretty good GM, while Tampa Bay had a really terrible organization.
If we’re going by wins, the 1998 A’s were a C- team, but that’s not how you should go about evaluating an organization.
If we’re going by wins…
I’m not going by wins! Good Lord, if I were going by wins, wouldn’t I be citing the Yankees or Angels instead of Oakland?
I’m going by a demonstrated track record. Oakland’s management team has shown the ability to stockpile young and undervalued talent, and then turn that talent into a winning team at the Major League level. Tampa Bay hasn’t. In a case where two organizations are close in strength, I’d give the nod to the organization that’s further along the developmental path, which Oakland is right now. Wouldn’t you?
Oakland has an excellent process in place and has used that to great effect on the Major League level. Tampa Bay looks like it also has an excellent process in place, but it hasn’t had the time to produce that track record.
I can’t rank them ahead of Oakland based on the premise that they can take that next step, because I don’t know that they can. Tampa Bay hasn’t yet faced those kind of tests, and I have no idea whether they will pass them or fail them.
Dave:
I’ve been thinking about this comment and it seems at odds that one could be adept at judging good young talent but unable to judge “established” talent effectively. One might think major leaguers would be easier to judge if for no other reason than sample size considerations. Obviously a scout’s eyes focus on the same things in a player irregardless of age. In your opinion, what are some of the underlying reasons for such an apparent dichotomy?
I’ve been thinking about this comment and it seems at odds that one could be adept at judging good young talent but unable to judge “established†talent effectively. One might think major leaguers would be easier to judge if for no other reason than sample size considerations. Obviously a scout’s eyes focus on the same things in a player irregardless of age. In your opinion, what are some of the underlying reasons for such an apparent dichotomy?
I’m not Dave, but I’ll venture a guess: Major League statistics. Young guys have scouting reports and minor league stats, while established veterans have scouting reports and Major League stats. There is a cadre of baseball folks who don’t think minor league numbers mean very much. Those folks tend to put a lot of stock in numbers at the big league level though (you may have some names in mind). Let’s call them the “track-record” guys.
For track-record guys, young kids are evaluated based on their scouting reports, and established veterans are evaluated based on the last two or three years of stats, likely AVG, RBIs and ERA. If they have good scouts, they’ll do a good job evaluating the kids because they’ll have good scouting reports. But they’ll do a terrible job evaluating veterans, because they’re ignoring the lost bat speed, the aging legs, the gradual decline, and putting way too much stock in that career year they had a couple years ago.
…
…
99 Bermanator F-
First line of Bermanator’s most recent post:
I’m not going by wins!
Two lines below that:
I’m going by a demonstrated track record. Oakland’s management team has shown the ability to stockpile young and undervalued talent, and then turn that talent into a winning team at the Major League level. Tampa Bay hasn’t.
How are people misrepresenting your position by saying you’re judging by prior wins, again?
How are people misrepresenting your position by saying you’re judging by prior wins, again?
Because I’m not going by won-loss total so much as I am any history at all of achievement at the Major League level. I’m as process-oriented as the next guy, but eventually that process has to produce results.
At this stage in the game, Tampa Bay has not gotten to that point — and ergo, though I think they are on the right track, I would rank them behind organizations who are also on the right track but are farther along. It is promising. But that promise has not been realized as it has in Oakland, and to an extent Milwaukee.
Jeff, give me your rationale as to why Tampa Bay should rank ahead of Oakland, and perhaps we can move on from there. I’m genuinely curious as to what metrics would make that possible.
Okay so how, other than wins, do you define “any history at all of achievement at the Major League level”?
Not being terrible every year?
Seriously, make the case for me that Tampa Bay should be ranked ahead of Oakland, and maybe I’ll be convinced. But I can’t come up with the metrics to make that happen.
This is quite a thread. Me thinks, Bermenator, that you are taking things much too far here. So a team was ranked by Dave 2 or 8 positions off what you would rank.
And his somewhat nebulous metrics are different from your nebulous metrics. So be it. I found the dialogue interesting, but holding fast on this point… isn’t it a tad extreme?
Let it go…
Okay, so what, other than won-loss total, is your criteria for “not being terrible”?
Do you see where this is going?
If you want to say that wins are important at evaluating major league organizations, then just say so. It’s not the point of THIS list, though.
Jeff Nye-
I respond with the naive optimism that if I do so, at some point you will deign to answer my question.
Is it so unreasonable, when ranking organizations based on “which organizations have laid the strongest foundation between their ownership, baseball operations department, and coaching staffs to insert a winning DNA into their baseball teams,” to consider — not as the lead variable, mind you, but as a factor — whether the management team has demonstrated the ability to carry out the process in the past?
I understand that wins and losses are not the point of this list. It is a very process-oriented, methodology-oriented, metrics-oriented list. That’s why I enjoy it.
But I don’t think it’s unreasonable — or until now, even controversial — to consider how far along a given organization is on the path when ranking organizations.
And while past performance is no guarantee of future results, it is an indication that a team has been able to implement these processes successfully, which Oakland has done.
Tampa Bay at the Major League level has perenially been among the worst teams in the American League. You want to say that winning hasn’t been the organizational goal under the new regime, and I’ll buy that. You want to say that most of the failures are because of the old regime, and I’ll buy that too. I don’t penalize them for it. But they don’t get extra credit for it either, which is why I would rank them not 29th or 30th, but certainly behind Oakland.
And to repeat myself:
Seriously, make the case for me that Tampa Bay should be ranked ahead of Oakland, and maybe I’ll be convinced. But I can’t come up with the metrics to make that happen.
Tampa Bay is, right now, where Cleveland was after the 2003 season.
Shapiro had been the GM for two years, in which the team had won 74 and then 68 games. Wedge was the manager for the second of those two seasons, guiding the team to a record six wins worse than the previous season. They had played the year with a bunch of young kids, some who had been good and others who had not. They had one of the lowest payrolls in the game and an ownership that was tightening the budget.
It didn’t matter. They had already laid the groundwork for the ’04-’07 Indians. They had picked up Travis Hafner for nothing. They made the Bartolo Colon deal that brought them Sizemore, Phillips, and Lee. They had developed Victor Martinez, C.C. Sabathia, Jake Westbrook, Jhonny Peralta, Rafael Betancourt and Casey Blake.
The heavy lifting had already been done. It was around that time that I started calling them the best run organization in baseball. They had instituted a philosophy, demonstrated by many of the moves they had made to insure that the foundation for the next great Indians team was in place, that had proven successful many times before – acquire a lot of terrific young players and watch them turn into a good team.
Tampa Bay has done the exact same thing already. They’ve already put the foundation in place for a tremendous team. It’s already there – the work is mostly done.
A belief that something isn’t knowable until after its been demonstrated is an analytical flaw, and it’s the exact reasoning that kept Adam Jones from helping the Mariners this year. A desire to believe only in what your eyes have seen is a problem.
Dave:
You mention (again) the main reason why I think TB doesn’t (necessarily) deserve a high grade (yet)–especially compared to Shapiro’s Indians: we haven’t seen Friedman deal with the trade market.
Well, there is one grade I can agree with – Cincinnati getting a big, fat F.
They’ve just hired Dusty Baker. A better argument for a relegation system could not be made.
Just as an aside, which major US sport tends to hire retreads the most? NBA? MLB? NFL?
A belief that something isn’t knowable until after its been demonstrated is an analytical flaw
The comparison to Seattle and Adam Jones is not a valid one, because there we had minor league numbers that we could use to project Major League performance.
We don’t have that with Tampa Bay. Because they excel at one aspect of organization building is not enough for me to project that they will handle everything else equally adeptly, as opposed (again) to an Oakland team that has already done so.
Ranking Tampa Bay so highly right now is like ranking a college football team No. 3 in the country because it signed a couple of great recruiting classes. You also need to prove you can use that talent wisely.
I don’t understand where you’re coming from with this argument. We have the last several years to gain insight into Tampa’s organizational philosophy.
Doesn’t what Tampa has refused to do via trade and free agency inform their performance evaluation too?
Where has Tampa failed in that regard?
They’ve got a rotation that looks to be 7 deep by next year, legit high ceiling positional prospects that look to solve their defensive deficiencies possibly as early as next season, and an awful pen that can probably be fixed in house coupled with some minor outside tweaking.
Really, ranking Tampa #3 isn’t like making them #3 in the country based upon a great recruiting class. It’s ranking teams based upon how well they’ve shown the attributes that should allow them to consistently win in the future.
To use your college football analogy, it’s looking at their recruiting classes to see how they evaluate talent, watching their player development to see how they can coach up that talent, and watching how they build a roster in essence using their priorities to indicate their philosophy. Then all of these aspects are considered to evaluate whether they have a cohesive, systematic organizational approach to winning.
How did Tampa Bay’s front office handle making trade deadline deals to fill holes for a playoff run? Oh wait, we don’t know how yet. For all we know they could pull a Gillick and stand pat.
My issue with Tampa Bay is their payroll. Cleveland’s payroll is twice as big, Oakland’s nearly two and a half. Their immediate direct competitors (Bos, NYY) are 5 and 6 times bigger. How can an ownership group — however well-intentioned, however smart, however cohesive, however capable of discovering and developing low-cost talent — insert winning DNA when their payroll is so off-the-charts low? Do you Dave (or anyone) know if TB has any plan or process underway to add significantly to payroll? Without that, I fear they will continue to be nothing more than brilliant pretenders.
Terry, if by saying their rotation is “7-deep” is like saying the Mariners rotation is “7-deep” (if you include Feierabend and Baek). At least three of their starters are demonstrably worthless (Seo, Howell, Hamell)
Let’s remember…Horacio Ramirez was once young – in fact, his first season (at age 23 he posted a 104 ERA+, he followed it up with 180 ERA+ the next season) – that’s a better debut than any of the TB starters outside of Kazmir and Shields.
Just remember, in order to become a crappy, overpaid veteran (Remember, our boy Horacio is only 27!), you need to show some success as a youngster.
You are aware that Tampa Bay’s defense cost their team something on the order of a run per ballgame, right?
At least three of their starters are demonstrably worthless (Seo, Howell, Hamell)
I can’t even begin to see why you’d say that, much less why I should take anything you’re going to say in the future seriously.
And I don’t really care any more if you’re ignorant or just trying to get someone’s goat – that’s a remarkably dumb thing to say.
#10: I’d argue for a mark higher than D- but the rumor is that they are about to make Dusty Baker…..
Cincy hires Baker to a 3 year deal.
Is there such a thing as an F- rating?
Seo, Age 30; ERA+ 57;
Howell, Age 24: ERA+ 61 (91 and 70 in his previous two years, respectively)
Hamell, Abge 24: ERA+ 75 (69 in his rookie season)
—
For comparison, HoRam was at 60; Weaver was at 69; Baek was at 73.
I feel like I’m looking at the Mariners of the 1980’s. Small Market; Crappy Stadium; Mountains of Losses; No improvement, ever; A pile of high draft picks; An unwillingness to be a player in the FA Market; putting stock in guys with shaky or non-existant track records; not finding “free talent” when available; and a perpetual ‘wait till our young guys improve’ excuse.
But enough on that… Dave has seen fit to state that the Devil Rays are one of the top 3 managed clubs in baseball. This would imply that at some point in the near future (10 years ought to be enough. GM’s usually dont’ stick that long and that gets their young guys through their prime) he feels that Tampa Bay will be one of the top 3 clubs in baseball.
Well you’re definitely going for the jugular by using ERA-based metrics…. 😛
If only someone had written a blog post saying “Why ERA and WHIP don’t cut it these days.”
One might also note that the Mariners of the 1980’s turned into the Mariners of the 1990’s… which is sort of our point.
not finding “free talent†when available
Um, no. The Rays won this year’s “free talent” award with Carlos Pena, Brendan Harris, and Al Reyes.
putting stock in guys with shaky or non-existant track records
You mean guys like Carlos Pena and Brendan Harris?
If only someone had written a blog post saying ‘Why ERA and WHIP don’t cut it these days.’
Sorry for using a simple, reliable metric that accurately represents a pitchers -actual- (rather than theoretical) performance.
One might also note that the Mariners of the 1980’s turned into the Mariners of the 1990’s… which is sort of our point.
Well, if not resigning three sure-fire Hall of Famers and one absolute miracle playoff-series victory (after a miracle run to the playoffs that occurred when both Griffey and Johnson missed substantial time and Rodriguez was yet to establish himself) is the measure of an ‘A’ franchise, then yes, it is possible that Tampa Bay might duplicate that success. But even that’s being generous.
Um, no. The Rays won this year’s “free talent†award with Carlos Pena, Brendan Harris, and Al Reyes.
Uh, I whiffed on Pena. Reyes would have been a win had they been able to get rid of him at the trade deadline (why a win-later team wants to keep a middle reliever on the wrong side of 35 is beyond me; i’ll assume they didn’t get any realistic offers).
Sorry for using a simple, reliable metric that accurately represents a pitchers -actual- (rather than theoretical) performance.
Well, actually, not so much, since it’s pretty clear ERA has huge dependencies on things like team defense… which, again, is the point concerning Tampa Bay and Dave’s post.
But you go on ignoring the point. Tampa sux LOL.
Also, you could note the 60’s A’s, 80’s Pirates or other examples. Franchises don’t stay downtrodden very long when they accumulate talent, and Tampa’s accumulated a lot of it.
I have to disagree with the Giants as an “F”, which is to suggest that they’ve failed at everything at which an organization can fail. Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, and Noah Lowry are in the rotation. Kevin Correia, Pat Misch, or Jonathan Sanchez might join them soon. Brad Hennessey is a league-average reliever. They’ve littered baseball with pitchers with high ceilings (Francisco Liriano, Jeremy Accardo) and lower, but still valuable ceilings (Brian Burres, Jon Coutlangus, Carlos Villanueva, Clay Hensley, and David Aardsma)
They’ve used their first-rounders wisely (Cain, Lowry, Lincecum), and they’ve found diamonds in the rough (Coutlangus was an outfielder; Accardo was undrafted; Sanchez was a 43rd-rounder). The current braintrust might be as good at scouting and developing pitching as any in the game.
Every other aspect of the organization is so wretched that it wholly compromises their success in drafting pitchers, true. But four “F”s and an “A” still equals a “D-“. There has to be some credit given to their success with finding arms.
That screams for a haiku:
trolls are the result
when penis size frustrates id
don’t let id rule you
Uh, I whiffed on Pena.
You forgot Brendan Harris. You whiffed pretty big on Harris too. Tampa Bay found its starting 1B (who will get MVP votes), starting SS, and closer off the scrap heap, so clearly the Rays organization does not understand the concept of freely available talent.
Reyes would have been a win had they been able to get rid of him at the trade deadline
Um, no again. The team had a cheap $1 million option on Reyes, so he was not an impending free agent. In a market where middle relievers get 3+ years at $4+ million (hello Danyz Baez, Justin Speier, Jamie Walker, etc.), Reyes at 1/$1 million is a steal. And they can always trade him at the next deadline.
The funny thing is you complain that Tampa Bay has not brought in free agents or tried to win in the present, but then when they bring back a contributing veteran like Reyes on the cheap, you complain that they are stupid for doing so.
you ignore one vital criteria that will always drag Oakland down and if things don’t get better will drag the Indains down: No matter how “well run” these organizations are the overall value / revenue of the team and organization is very low, and Oakland is at the bottom. Neither team draws even average attendance dispite winning. That is why Oakland gets to trade 75% of all of its best players as they reach prime years. And Billie has made some headscratchers when he does spend money: Paying Kendall all that money??? and the Hernandez signing has never really paid off. The Indians, one of the best two or so teams in the AL this year couldn’t give away tickets. 2-3 more years and half their guys start showing up in Boston and NY.
Tampa Bay is even worse. No ability to hang on to anyone, just another farm club for the rest, like Montreal was all those years.
And I REALLY don’t understand the Yankees being up there, more bad expensive moves than all the rest put together, her they are with NO future pen and onlyu a couple of promising young starters. How anyone could spend what they do and still trail LAA, the SOX and Cleveland….glad it is not my money.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Cleveland’s drawn quite well when they’re winning. In 2001 they were 4th in attendance. They drew over two million this year following an off season.
The A’s have new owners and are set to move into a swanky new stadium.