Thoughts From Milwaukee

Dave · October 23, 2008 at 8:00 am · Filed Under Mariners 

One thing there is no shortage of when it comes to the hiring of Zduriencik is opinions. Everyone has them, and no one is shy in sharing them with the world. However, opinions aren’t particularly useful in and of themselves. If we want to hold an opinion that has some substance to it and could be considered useful, what we really need is information. So, in search of more good information about Jack Zduriencik, I went to the smartest guy I know who follows the Brewers with the same kind of passion that we follow the Mariners – Patrick Ebert, one of the guys in charge of BrewerFan.net and a writer for Perfect Game USA, the top independent amateur scouting agency around.

Patrick’s been a friend for a while, and he knows baseball, and specifically, he knows the Brewers. He isn’t random fan-on-the-street. So, after the Zduriencik hire was announced, I talked with Patrick, and he’s agreed to let me publish his last bit of our conversation, because it’s worth reading.

It’s always funny reading the comments from one fan-site/blog to another. Brewers fans are crushed that he’s gone, knowing that he is largely responsible for supplying most of the talent to the Brewers, a team that hadn’t made the postseason in 26 years, and the fans of USS Mariner seem to think the Ms chose the worst candidate of the four they were considering.

Your post was dead-on. Zduriencik isn’t going to bring any revolutionary statistical analysis with him, at least not on his own merit, and it will be interesting to see what kind of stat-crunching team, if any, he puts in place (Doug Melvin has one, at least one person, if not one team).

You mentioned the teams that have a strong scouting backbone, and that is definitely the approach you should expect. He will trust his scouts, not only the amateur guys in regards to the drafts, but the pro guys looking to nab the next Scott Podsednik off of waivers, the next Doug Davis as a minor league free agent, the next Carlos Villanueva in a dump trade (thank you Wayne Franklin) or the next Gabe Kapler as a reclamation project of sorts. These were the deals he witnessed while watching Doug Melvin do his thing, and reportedly Jack Zduriencik was very involved with all baseball decisions, not just those that pertained to the draft, as the team even flew him to Latin America when trying to make crucial decisions on what young Latin players they should sign.

And that in itself is another point to Jack’s credit. The Brewers have never been strong signing international talent, and yet they have succeeded by accumulating almost all of their homegrown talent through the draft. This is something that Jim Callis of Baseball America has brought several times in the past when love for Jack Z. is being shared (and of course Zduriencik has international scouting experience during his time spent with the Dodgers).

One other thing I noticed was that a few people questioned several of his first-round picks, including Dave Krynzel, Mike Jones and Mark Rogers. It should be noted that no scouting director is perfect, and fortunately when Zduriencik didn’t hit a home run with his first round pick, he did so with a later round pick the same year. in 2000 it was Corey Hart (11th round). In 2001 it was J.J. Hardy (2nd) and Manny Parra (26th, DFE signing in ’02*). In 2004 it was Yovani Gallardo (2nd) among others the team is still counting on to be a part of the future.

*The DFE process is something else that needs to be mentioned, as few scouting departments used this opportunity as much as the Brewers did under Zduriencik’s watch, a sign of the true essence of the team’s scouting background.

And again, he transformed an organization that had no talent to one that has so much that GM Doug Melvin didn’t hesitate trading some prominent prospects to acquire C.C. Sabathia, something few teams would be able to do without sacrificing the future stability of the team (I know this hits a little closer to home given what the Ms gave up to acquire Bedard), much less be able to make such a trade at all.

I know you know most to all of this having followed the Brewers in your work with BP to our previous conversations, not to mention your initial love for Brad Nelson back in 2002 when he tore up the Midwest League. But as you know I’m very passionate about this kind of stuff, and I had to share some of my thoughts with you on the subject since you’re equally passionate about the Mariners. I hate to see him go, but no one in baseball deserves this appointment more than Jack Zduriencik, a true baseball man and one, if given the proper support, should do wonders in turning your organization around.

And don’t expect him to draft a college reliever in the first round.

Patrick also shared this link about a story written for SABR about Tony Blengino, one of Zduriencik’s main scouts in Milwaukee, and his take on statistical analysis. For those of you afraid that Z and his scouts are going to be anti-intellect, anti-knowledge, your fear is not based in reality. Read Patrick’s comments again, read the linked article, and realize that very smart people can run a very successful organization with a scouting mentality.

Comments

73 Responses to “Thoughts From Milwaukee”

  1. eponymous coward on October 23rd, 2008 5:00 pm

    EC – why is wanting a change in management remotely close to wanting them to kill themselves?

    Yes, I use hyperbole in my posts. That’s because I consider most of the criticism of the hiring decision to be similarly hyperbolic.

    As Jeff said, if you were expecting that Lincoln/Armstrong/Lee P. and so on were going to get kicked to the curb the nanosecond a new GM was named, NOTHING was going to satisfy you.

    I’m fine with a widely respected guy getting the hire, and we can work from there. Bonus points if it looks like we keep Fontaine and Engle around.

  2. John in L.A. on October 23rd, 2008 5:01 pm

    John in L.A.: I think we’re all giving him an incomplete at this point, since he hasn’t done anything yet. The difference is between those of us who are giving him an incomplete and think he has a chance to pass, and those like you who are giving him an incomplete but presupposing his failure.

    So, by that logic, TAM, we should have the same positive reaction to any possible hire.

    It is out of line to criticize since they haven’t started yet, so that would go for any hire.

    And I am NOT presupposing his failure. I am saying that skepticism is warranted and that I am disappointed in the lack of insight I have available to me into his process.

    I am having a hard time believing that this stuff is coming from people I have read all these years. “Just accept it, give him the benefit of the doubt, we don’t need to know how he feels about metrics, it’s not important, look only at his results, why so negative…”

    There is nothing at all unreasonable about being skeptical absent basic information. In fact, it would be unreasonable not to be.

  3. gwangung on October 23rd, 2008 5:15 pm

    I am having a hard time believing that this stuff is coming from people I have read all these years. “Just accept it, give him the benefit of the doubt, we don’t need to know how he feels about metrics, it’s not important, look only at his results, why so negative…”

    Because YOU, John, are not looking at Zduriencik’s process. You only see that he’s not at the leading edge of stats. It looks like you’re falling in love with the tool and ignoring that they’re tools in order to get to an end goal. And that you can get to that end goal with a variety of tools.

  4. eponymous coward on October 23rd, 2008 5:25 pm

    There is nothing at all unreasonable about being skeptical absent basic information.

    But we’ve got a lot of basic information: the Mariners hired a widely respected candidate who gets LOTS of praise from observers, they spent time interviewing widely respected candidates as opposed to Cam Bonifay and Allard Baird, and it’s easy to find examples of organizations that succeed at producing talent (Milwaukee, Minnesota) as opposed to succeed at grinding through stats (Oakland).

    The fact that the Mariners didn’t hire a 28 year old assistant GM with an advanced degree from an Ivy League school does NOT damn them to another 5 years of bad baseball decisions, and the sooner we get over the idea that the Gospel According to Moneyball is the only way to succeed in MLB, the sooner we can be realistic in evaluating the team going forward.

  5. marc w on October 23rd, 2008 5:27 pm

    “In fact, it would be unreasonable not to be.”

    Again, the man was the exec of the year according to BA, AND the #2 on the next GM list from Baseball Prospectus. Read that last link in this post too; he’s worked directly with Blengino – he was his direct supervisor. I’m not sure that this will meet your standard for being tolerant of or conversant in metrics, but it’s SOME data that’s relevant.

    “So, by that logic, TAM, we should have the same positive reaction to any possible hire. ”

    From my POV, the man’s been in integral part of a fascinating and successful rebuild in Milwaukee. That’s absolutely not the case with any other possible hire – just as it wasn’t with Bavasi. I’ll grant you that being skeptical *should* be the default position around here if you’ll grant that there is a hell of lot of evidence that we just hired an extremely competent GM.

    Again, I understand where you’re coming from, and Woodfork would’ve been a cool hire too. But even though he’s not ~30 years old with an Ivy League background, he’s worked with statistically inclined people to completely remake a failed franchise (on a budget). I’m happy about this not because I’m a starry-eyed fanboy, but because you HAVE to respect what he’s done.

  6. John in L.A. on October 23rd, 2008 5:33 pm

    Because YOU, John, are not looking at Zduriencik’s process. You only see that he’s not at the leading edge of stats. It looks like you’re falling in love with the tool and ignoring that they’re tools in order to get to an end goal. And that you can get to that end goal with a variety of tools.

    What kind of logic is that, gwangung?

    I’m not looking at a process that is not available to be looked at? That’ s my whole point.* All I have available to me is his results. I have no idea how he got there. And now people HERE are telling me I am wrong to want to know what he believes?

    And I can hardly be considered anti-scouting, pro-stats. I have had so many strawmen thrown at my position in this thread that I have lost count. I’m not counting them anymore. You are all smart enough to see the difference between what I’ve written and what people like you and Jeff are arguing with me about.

    *For that matter, he may BE on the cutting edge of stats, I don’t know. I just want to know.

    Listen to yourselves.

  7. John in L.A. on October 23rd, 2008 5:48 pm

    But we’ve got a lot of basic information: the Mariners hired a widely respected candidate who gets LOTS of praise from observers, they spent time interviewing widely respected candidates as opposed to Cam Bonifay and Allard Baird, and it’s easy to find examples of organizations that succeed at producing talent (Milwaukee, Minnesota) as opposed to succeed at grinding through stats (Oakland).

    That’s not information, that’s commentary.

    The only thing I know about his process is… he likes high school players? He employs at least one scout who is a member of SABR?

    And again… who said I wanted a stat-grinder? Are you inferring that from my desire for someone who uses all available tools?

    I want a paradigm change in Seattle. Is this it? Maybe, but it is 100% reasonable to be skeptical.

    The fact that the Mariners didn’t hire a 28 year old assistant GM with an advanced degree from an Ivy League school does NOT damn them to another 5 years of bad baseball decisions, and the sooner we get over the idea that the Gospel According to Moneyball is the only way to succeed in MLB, the sooner we can be realistic in evaluating the team going forward.

    What an absurd characterization of my position.

    Go strawman someone else, ok?

  8. Dave on October 23rd, 2008 5:54 pm

    You guys are talking past each other. There’s a crowd of people whose response to this was “Howard and Chuck hire old white guy – hahhaa I told you we were screwed forever!”, and EC/Jeff/TAM are annoyed with how many of those people are out there. I am too, honestly – it’s amazing how many people are trying to pass off cynicism as wisdom.

    In turn, you’re responding to those people’s response to the idiots, annoyed that anyone who isn’t praising the hire is seen as being pessimistic. But they’re not really talking to you.

    Let’s just get this out of the way – John’s right, there are reasons why this might not work, and I think we all would agree that we all want Zduriencik to build an analytical department but we’re not sure he’s going to. It’s possible that his great scouting really was just random variation (give enough scouting directors enough picks and someone will look like a genius eventually), and this could turn out to be a missed opportunity to turn the organization in a better direction.

    But here’s the thing, John – your using the same arguments that the anti-Ichiro crowd is using to deride his value. He doesn’t look like a right fielder, he doesn’t do the things that a right fielder should do, so therefore, he’s not as good as a typical power hitting RF. We all know that’s crap, though, because Ichiro is so good at hitting singles that his lack of walks and power aren’t a big problem.

    What we’re saying is that Zduriencik could very well be the Ichiro of scouting directors, and if he is really that good at picking out talent, it won’t really matter that he doesn’t know how to calculate wOBA.

  9. John in L.A. on October 23rd, 2008 6:05 pm

    Again, the man was the exec of the year according to BA, AND the #2 on the next GM list from Baseball Prospectus.

    I find that tremendously exciting. I also want to know why. What makes him good.

    If I tried to sell a hitter her because he had a good average, but refused to discuss the specifics and told you just to assume he was awesome without any more information, you would mock the hell out of me. But that is exactly what is expected of my here.

    You’re telling me to just assume that the experts are right even though they cannot tell me why.

    Read that last link in this post too; he’s worked directly with Blengino – he was his direct supervisor. I’m not sure that this will meet your standard for being tolerant of or conversant in metrics, but it’s SOME data that’s relevant.

    Agreed. I read it and mentioned it in my initial post. I found it interesting, I like it. It didn’t, however, give me any insight into our new hire. Was he hired because of his SABR membership? In spite of? Was that information used by his bosses?

    From my POV, the man’s been in integral part of a fascinating and successful rebuild in Milwaukee. That’s absolutely not the case with any other possible hire – just as it wasn’t with Bavasi. I’ll grant you that being skeptical *should* be the default position around here if you’ll grant that there is a hell of lot of evidence that we just hired an extremely competent GM.

    I hope you’re right. But that was widely believed to be true of countless others. All I want to know is how he works, how he thinks.

    My skepticism could disappear in an instant… but absent that information it is only reasonable for it to remain.

    Again, I understand where you’re coming from, and Woodfork would’ve been a cool hire too. But even though he’s not ~30 years old with an Ivy League background, he’s worked with statistically inclined people to completely remake a failed franchise (on a budget). I’m happy about this not because I’m a starry-eyed fanboy, but because you HAVE to respect what he’s done.

    I have zero disrespect for him. I applaud his results. He could be a franchise savior. And I dearly hope he is.

    But I just read somewhere (an election blog run by a baseball guy, actually):

    In Chuck Todd we believe, all others bring data.

    I just want data. I want to know why he is a game-changer. Is he going to run the franchise the same, only better? Are his results transferable? Is he, absent the other factors with his old team, going to be able to recreate his success? How can I have an opinion without knowing what he wants to do?

    Better would be great… but I keep getting promised that, and it keeps not happening. I’m ready for different.

    All that said… I really appreciate your input and your tone, marc. I think I agree with you all the way until the point where I think: this is all great, but I’m not really being given much insight into him at all. Just praise and track record. Both of which are important, but less so without knowing why he has them.

  10. Jeff Nye on October 23rd, 2008 6:07 pm

    To expand on what Dave’s saying a little, from my point of view:

    What we’re saying is that Zduriencik could very well be the Ichiro of scouting directors, and if he is really that good at picking out talent, it won’t really matter that he doesn’t know how to calculate wOBA.

    Dave goes out of his way to disclaimer that Zduriencik might just have been getting lucky, and that’s certainly possible; but I don’t think it’s LIKELY, and what I honestly believe that the M’s got with this hire is exactly what Dave says here, the “Ichiro of scouting directors”.

    This site obviously self-selects for people who put more value into statistical evaluation than more “traditional” scouting, but really, the tool you use doesn’t matter as much as people think.

    To turn it around a little…let’s say that the M’s had hired Kim Ng, and it turns out that she really finds no value in what scouts have to say (it’s an example, don’t crucify me for it) and ignored the scouting department’s input completely. That’d be just as much of a mistake as ignoring statistical analysis.

    It’s how good you are at whatever your approach is that really matters, and the BEST organizations blend both; but honestly, Zduriencik might end up being BETTER than Antonetti or Ng would have been, based on his expertise with the tools he’s been using for years.

    We just don’t have enough information to know yet, and it’s pointless to do all this handwringing just because the Mariners made a less progressive hire than we might have wanted.

    Skepticism is fine, but a lot of the questions you’re asking just can’t be answered yet.

  11. BraunHolio on October 23rd, 2008 6:13 pm

    I am a statistician so I would love it to be otherwise but guys like Z are much rarer than stat-types. (i.e. Good “stat-guys” come through decent internship programs).

    Picking up the BEST evaluator of young talent in the country and hoping that he surrounds himself with good statistical minds is as good a front-office as you could find.

    It is arrogant to assume that because someone isn’t a stats first guy that you have just hired a tobacco chewing scout who likes to make decisions based on the lunar cycle and that the front office “stats” will be done on a C64. Listen to Dave and Patrick, you guys are going to be fine. It will be a measure of how you guys have done if the next Antonetti or NG type comes out of your front-office.

  12. John in L.A. on October 23rd, 2008 6:20 pm

    What we’re saying is that Zduriencik could very well be the Ichiro of scouting directors, and if he is really that good at picking out talent, it won’t really matter that he doesn’t know how to calculate wOBA.

    Well, shit. That’s a very compelling way to put it.

    Alright. I give in. I’ll open myself up again to the possibility of true love… knowing that it might end in long nights listening to Tom Petty and crying in my scotch.

    And to the rest of you… if I sounded combative it is only because I was. I missed all the anti-Zduriencik stuff Dave refers to and took all the derision upon myself.

    Bottom line is that though I wish I had a better sense of revolution, I’m excited to see what changes the offseason brings.

  13. msb on October 23rd, 2008 6:26 pm

    say, you know what would be cool?

    some sort of blogosphere get-together where the new GM comes to talk with us all.

  14. Dave on October 23rd, 2008 6:29 pm

    Really, the easiest way to think of it is like this – if Z is as good as everyone says, the best case scenario here is that we become the 1990s Braves all over again. Or, if you prefer, the current versions of the Twins with a bigger payroll. Or the Northwest version of the Angels.

    These are the best case scenarios. No one is saying Zduriencik is going to turn us into the Indians, A’s, or Rays. What we are saying is that you really can out-scout the rest of baseball on a consistent basis and build a perennial winner in the process. While I think the Twins and Angels are missing the boat by not incorporating more statistical analysis into their organizations, there’s no way their fans look at their current organizations and say “man, we’re screwed”.

    Neither should we look at Zduriencik and think that. Now, maybe Z isn’t as good a scout as everyone says, and we turn into the Mets instead of the Braves, or the Dodgers instead of the Angels. We’re still not screwed – those big money scout first franchises are winning a lot of games.

    John’s point about this not being a revolution is entirely correct. But I think our reaction is basically along the lines of “okay, so, no 180 degree change in organizational philosophy, but being a great scouting organization with a $100 million payroll isn’t a bad consolation prize.”

  15. Dave on October 23rd, 2008 6:29 pm

    some sort of blogosphere get-together where the new GM comes to talk with us all.

    We’re working on it.

  16. msb on October 23rd, 2008 6:30 pm

    I bet Bill would give us a good recommendation.

  17. Dave on October 23rd, 2008 6:37 pm

    So will Bob, and his office is pretty close to Jack’s. I don’t know when it will happen, but I’d bet on Zduriencik coming to a USSM event at some point this winter.

  18. BraunHolio on October 23rd, 2008 6:40 pm

    I feel for you guys, I know what you guys have dealt with over the past few years. I Think of it this way…

    The difference between Z and the next best scouting focussed GM? Perhaps massive.

    The gap between say the best stats-focussed GM candidate (Antonetti?) and the next best? Probably minor.

    Probably(Definitely judging by what you guys seem to think of how your organisation is run) by accident the Mariners have made a really good decision based on marginal values…

    Another thing that I am throwing out there is that as more and more organisations are run by stat-types being the best scouting-focussed organisation is in itself a comparative advantage. As more organisations are able to make cogent analyses of cheap talent, trades etc the cheap talent becomes less cheap and trades become less lopsided. Relatively speaking the advantage of being adept at scouting becomes more pronounced.

    This of course assumes that Z is the best scouting director in the business and as a Brewers fan that’s an assumption that I am really happy to make.

  19. The Ancient Mariner on October 23rd, 2008 7:12 pm

    John’s point about this not being a revolution is entirely correct. But I think our reaction is basically along the lines of “okay, so, no 180 degree change in organizational philosophy, but being a great scouting organization with a $100 million payroll isn’t a bad consolation prize.”

    That sums it up nicely. And I’ll certainly grant John in L.A.’s objection that it’s hard to see the process in scouting — it’s something of a black box; rather as with the guys who grade cotton, who do it by nothing they can quantify. On this one, the only thing you can look at is, when this guy looks at a ballplayer and says, “He’s going to be a good prospect,” do those players turn out to be good prospects significantly more often than the average? And, do the principles he advocates for turning prospects into MLB players do so more reliably than the average? With Zduriencik, the indicators are very, very good.

  20. Max Power on October 23rd, 2008 9:15 pm

    And I’ll certainly grant John in L.A.’s objection that it’s hard to see the process in scouting — it’s something of a black box

    Speaking for myself only, it’s not so much that scouting is a black box. I’ve already figured that much out and if there was a reasonable front office in place, I think a lot of us would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    The problem is that there’s no indication that the thought process that went into Z’s hiring was any different than prior hires and that’s concerning.

    I don’t mean this as a knock at all on Z, who by all accounts is light years improved from his predecessors, just that there’s nothing about him that says to me that management is willing to make a clean break with the past.

  21. diderot on October 23rd, 2008 10:56 pm

    “Or, if you prefer, the current versions of the Twins with a bigger payroll.”

    I’d like to offer one other reason for optimism. Because M’s ownership largely represents Nintendo and Microsoft (solid so far), that may give us an advantage over the investment bankers/real estate magnates/hedge fund managers who own other teams.
    Wouldn’t it be nice for everyone else to be Smulyan this time?

  22. vj on October 24th, 2008 4:10 am

    FWIW, Dave’s organizational ranking list from last year had Milwaukee as the fourth best.

    Assuming Zduriencik shares major responsibility for that, I have a hard time not being encurraged by this hire.

  23. The Ancient Mariner on October 24th, 2008 7:12 am

    Max, the reason our math teachers always wanted us to show our work was so that they could evaluate how likely we were to get the right answer next time; not showing our work didn’t change whether the answer we got this time was right or wrong. Similarly, L&A’s process tells us a great deal about whether, if Zduriencik drops dead of a heart attack in three weeks, they’re likely to do something good or boneheaded in hiring his replacement; it doesn’t tell us whether the decision they actually made was a good one or not. Only evaluating the man himself can do that.

    It’s sort of like the MVP discussion: do you give it to the guy with the best teammates, or to the guy who actually turned in the best performance? Similarly, I don’t think you can fairly evaluate Zduriencik on L&A’s merits, but only on his own. And on the basis of his accomplishments, while he wasn’t my first choice any more than he was anyone else’s, I think it ought to be clear that he was a good hire.

    Folks should stop comparing him to Bavasi, who’d been a GM once already and done badly at it. This is a guy who’s done a significant FO job extremely well and showed real and significant strengths and skills in so doing. Will he be able to translate that to the next level and perform equally well as a GM? We don’t know that. But here’s the kicker: we wouldn’t have known that with LaCava, Ng, or anyone else, either.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.