Thoughts From Milwaukee
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
USSM uses and recommends
“And don’t expect him to draft a college reliever in the first round.”
Nice…
It will be interesting if this hire will lead to bringing Nelson to the M’s…
“And don’t expect him to draft a college reliever in the first round.”— Wow. Thats a real classy cheap shot at Fontaine.
“And don’t expect him to draft a college reliever in the first round.”
So is it safe to say with ~99% certainty that Fields won’t be signed, and the team gets the #21B (or is it 22?) pick?
Rebuilding almost exclusively through the draft usually means a lengthy process (when was the last time the Brewers were competitive?), but with 3-4 1st round picks this year plus probably some prospects coming back in trades in 2009 and some top-tier pitching already in the pipe, the team could easily target 2011 as a start to a good run.
Wow. Thats a real classy cheap shot at Fontaine.
I don’t read that the same way you are. Where did he say Fontaine was responsible for that pick?
That wouldn’t even really jive with what he’s saying. If Fontaine were responsible for that pick, wouldn’t it be Fontaine (or his replacement) that he would be discussing the possibility of drafting college relievers in the first round, rather than Zduriencik?
Was is really a cheap shot? Drafting a reliever in the first round is an extremely stupid move that reeks of desperation. You do dumb things, you should expect to get called on it. I’m glad Fields has not signed.
Patrick wasn’t taking any kind of shot at Fontaine. Stop trying to invent things to be offended about.
But you also shouldn’t jump to conclusions about this having an impact on the Fields’ signing. If Fontaine sticks around, Zduriencik isn’t going to strip him of his power and say “bad pick, you don’t get to sign him.” That’s a terrible way to build a team that will work together. The odds of Fields signing today are pretty much the same as they were last week, and it depends on who bends in negotiations over money.
The Fields pick was bad, but who’s to say Fontaine was the one who made it?
And bad pick or not, Fields is a great talent, and the team could do worse. What if they let him go and then draft a bust? Hell, he could blow his arm out and be a bust.
I’d like them to sign him. Then hopefully JJ has a great first half and we trade him. Use Lowe, Fields, or Corcoran as the closer.
We won’t be winning anything for a few years anyway…hopefully Jay-Z will trade off all the regulars but Beltre, Ichiro, and Clement and get this thing going for 2010-2011!
I’m going to say, for one, that I’m actually happy we picked the GM with the strongest scouting background. I think it’s the best fit with what we have to work with here in Seattle.
Let’s be honest, Armstrong and Lincoln still run the team, and as long as that’s the case sabermetrics and a GM inclined in their direction is going to be a tough sell. However, the Mariners under Bavasi built an excellent scouting system, and I think the hire of Zduriencik is only going to further that.
I’m looking forward to having a few good homegrown players that we can spend some of our money keeping around. While of course winning in any way is welcomed, I think most fans would ideally love to have a team that comes up through the farm system together, and then stays together for a few years…that kind of team provides (I think) more enjoyment than a team constructed on the free agent market, the waiver wire, what have you (and of course it’s more cost-effective).
Of course, that’s no certainty, these are the Mariners after all, but I honestly feel a lot better about our chances down the road then I did a few days ago.
There is one potentially key difference between Milwaukee and Seattle when considering Zduriencik’s future efficacy as an M…. Milwaukee had Melvin while the Mariners have meddling….
Well, that’s good. A lot of the USSM comments gave me the impression that I was in an alternate universe where Chuck Armstrong’s and Howard Lincoln’s Mariner teams had never won a division title or playoff game during the time they were in the Mariner front office, and that there was no evidence that the Mariner franchise had different results under GMs not named Bill Bavasi.
I am fired up with this signing. He seems to be the best scouting mind available. Scouting seems more difficult of a skill to acquire than the sabermetric side. I really hope he uses both needed tools and assembles a good team of guys under him for the stat side. Accumulating depth in talent gives a team so many more options, and lets you be aggressive in trades when we get close.
THIS is good news. It indicates Zduriencik understands and appreciates that there are several ways to inject talent into your organization; and to my reading, also indicates that he values several different methods for identifying that talent.
The first-year player draft, international signings, minor-league free agents, the Rule 5 draft, waiver claims, taking a chance on injured/rehabbing/aging free agents by signing them on the cheap… if Zduriencik develops a solid process that values the right expertise in all of these areas, the M’s will be in good hands.
Like Dave said yesterday, it really depends on whether the M’s take a few more steps. Zduriencik could be a step forward if he shows a willingness to expand his toolset, or else a don’t-rock-the-boat type that keeps the team stuck in mediocrity. With the World Series going on (I’d love to root for the
D-Rays, but I have to root for Moyer), the M’s won’t be saying a whole lot, so we really won’t know for a while.An interesting point in Ebert’s comments is the part about Milwaukee lacking much in the international department. That has been one of the M’s strengths for a while now (predating Bavasi), so if Zduriencik can keep that strength and add to it, that would be a good thing.
Overall, it’s still a wait-and-see situation for me. F-Rod said
but that’s not necessarily true. The thing you don’t know how to do usually seems harder than the thing you do know how to do. Besides, the GM isn’t going to be the guy whipping up spreadsheets or squating out by the coaches box evaluating a 17-year old kid’s footwork. He’ll hire guys to do that. The question is, how will he integrate them into a single player evaluation system, and will that system do a better job of evaluating talent than the ones used by other clubs (most specifically in our case, the A’s and Angles)?
Short of a candid explanation from Zduriencik about his thoughts (when’s the next feed?) we’ll have to whatch his hires and roster moves.
Judging by his past hires (or people he worked with), Zduriencik doesn’t seem to have a problem with sabremetric-oriented people.
A question: at what point does sabremetrics become a useful tool? Certainly posting a 1.000 OPS in high school means little…and possibly in college, as well, given the varied level of competition.
Anecdotally, it seems used most often (here and elsewhere) as a measure of ML and ‘ML-ready’ minor league talent.
If so, the combination of Engle/Fontaine/Dr. Z would seem to give us a good chance of finding and signing people who get to the level of ever being judged by sabremetrics; but after that, we don’t really know what happens, do we?
In his role at Milwaukee, do we know what role Dr. Z had in deciding on trades or FA acquisitions…and if he did have a significant role, whether any advice he gave was based on statistical analysis?
Statistical methods are used quite effectively in more ways than just trying to evaluate talent. You’ve seen the guys at USSM use them to calculate what a given player provides over freely available replacement talent. You see them used to discuss lineup construction, you see them used to determine the impact of team defense on win / loss record.
Statistical analysis is a useful tool every day.
Heck, I’m sure the M’s marketing department ran some numbers before deciding to eliminate the $3 fee for Red Sox / Yankees games in the upcoming season.
I’m fine with the Zduriencik hiring. I can live with a couple of lean years while the organization builds up a solid foundation of young talent through scouting and the draft as long as I can see some hope on the horizon. I have no interest in seeing bandaids applied to a team of underachievers (Betancourt I’m looking your direction) and overpriced washed-up vets in order to squeeze out a few more wins over the short term.
There’s really two aspects to the M’s GM job, and we’re only going to get insights into one of them. The first, and easiest to evaluate, involves the team of people he puts into place around him. We won’t know what they’re telling him, but we can certainly look at the people themselves and make an informed guess about the quality of information he is working from (though of course we won’t know how he weighs it). And of course we can judge the results. The whole scouts/stats argument falls into this category.
But the second aspect is how the GM deals with ArmLinc, and that’s completely a black box for us outsiders. We hear rumors, and we infer things from decisions like taking Fields in the draft and not trading Washburn, but we don’t really know how much of that results from meddling by the higher-ups. However, in this aspect Mr. Z may have an advantage over some of the other short-list candidates: he has a long track record (and the recent leg of that record is very, very good) which he can point to when he gets into “discussions” with ArmLinc. Moreover it’s a track record they can understand (unlike, say, an Ivy League SABR wunderkind). And, not incidentally, he’s closer to them in age. All of those were probably comfort factors that got him hired, but they’re also things that can, or at least could, give him added gravitas in persuading/resisting ArmLinc in those discussions. In that respect he’s more like Gillick than Bavasi (and his record of building from within and making smart decisions wrt draft picks and cheap acquisitions / trades is better than either one).
It’s early days, and we’ll be reading a lot of tea leaves as the rest of the hiring dominoes fall (seriously, does watching the M’s front office remind anyone else of “Kremlinology” during the height of the cold war — hey, the Secretary of Whatever isn’t on the reviewing stand at the parade, and the head of the Bureau of State Somethings is standing next to the Undersecretary, I wonder what that means?) A GM who favors building from within through the draft (hello Tampa Bay Rays) isn’t going to deliver instant success. But given where we’ve been the past couple of years, up is really the only direction left, and hope is certainly a viable emotion in the M’s tribe for the first time in quite a while. Approaching the winter meetings and the trade deadline with something other than dread will make me happy; if he develops the farm and properly values players and doesn’t squander cheap youth in pursuit of expensive veteraness, I’ll be ecstatic.
Man, I’m pumped!!!!
Let’s get the offseason started!
I think it’s great to be positive about the hire. I also think it’s entirely justifiable to be pessimistic about the hire.
I can find nothing about his willingness to marry scouting with sabermetrics. I asked in another thread, but is it out there? Is all that we have on his relationship with stats the fact that one of his scouts also belonged to SABR? Is that it? In 2008 we can’t even find a record of him discussing it in any depth?
It’s entirely possible that I’ve just missed it, but I’ve Googled nine ways to Sunday and I can’t find squat.
This site has always preached the need for a GM to marry both sides of evaluation. Why is it unreasonable to want to know where our new GM stands on the issue?
And for those mocking the non-believers, keep in mind that a Mariners fan has earned every right to be skeptical.
I wanted a revolutionary hire. Instead I still have Chuck and Howard running the team… and they have hired someone they believe is what they thought they were getting with Bavasi.
They want to do the same thing they always have, just do it better. Fine. Better would be good. But forgive me for not being excited that they didn’t change the paradigm.
Be optimistic, throw parties, get excited. I’ll certainly be more excited for next year than I was for this one.
But resist the temptation to mock those of us who are disappointed.
He’s a GREAT scout/player-development talent, and I think Milwaukee shows what can happen when such a fellow gets into an organization that essentially depends upon leveraging such talents.
In Seattle, he takes the helm of a player development system that is already competent and in some regards is a model system (i.e. their international efforts). Yet this system still cries out to be maximally leveraged and he should be able to improve Seattle’s farm. What’s more, the Ms have the resources to literally pour insane amounts of capital into player development if they so choose.
All of that said, he’s a GM now and some of that skill will be diluted simply because other things take up his time. Also the skill set of this brutally demanding job requires a myriad of talents. Deficiencies in one or two can make otherwise talented, intelligent people look incompetent. He’s not a relief pitcher now. He doesn’t get to be leveraged by pitching mostly in situations that play to his strengths. Finally, he might not be in a situation where his talents will necessarily be maximally utilized as it remains to be seen to what extent his vision is ultimately enacted by an ownership that has a certain reputation.
To me a Chris A. hire would be a clear signal that ownership has realized that they need help. This hire smells more to me like ownership has circled the wagons in a sense. At least, they don;t view themselves as fundamentally part of the problem.
“I can find nothing about his willingness to marry scouting with sabermetrics. I asked in another thread, but is it out there? “
I understand the pessimism; I’m a Mariner fan… I GET it. But what exactly are you hoping to find here? The man’s a scouting director, he wasn’t a GM. Short of having a friend in the organization, what do you realistically think you’ll be able to find? Not only has Zduriencik pulled off some amazing drafts, but that whole organization has improved in some interesting ways. I really don’t know how to apportion credit for that, and I’m not sure it matters… he’s been an integral part of a great org, and that sounds good to me.
What I want in a GM is somewhat similar to what I’d like in a player: clear, demonstrable, bankable SKILLS. Zduriencik has them. Sure, we all hope he’s got other ones that we haven’t seen, but let’s not dismiss what the guy brings to the table. It’s clear that they’ve done something quite different from just drafting great hitters.
It may not look revolutionary, but what don’t know Z’s plans, just as we don’t know how much rope Antonetti/Woodfork/La Cava would’ve had. We also don’t know how well Antonetti/La Cava would’ve done in their first attempt at being the boss.
To me a Chris A. hire would be a clear signal that ownership has realized that they need help. This hire smells more to me like ownership has circled the wagons in a sense. At least, they don;t view themselves as fundamentally part of the problem.
This is the big reason why I’m disappointed. Maybe they hired him because he presented the best plan or maybe they hired him because he validated all of their flawed assumptions about how to run a baseball club.
They started with three reasonably dynamic candidates – any one of them would have sent a signal that they were learning. Then at nearly the tail end of the interview process, they trot out a candidate who looks like a new and improved version of the last guy they hired.
Maybe it’ll work out well – he certainly sounds like a major improvement over his predecessor.
There is no doubt that they hired a talented guy. But in many ways he might be the cutting edge pair of running shoes on the hurdler who is more in need of new contacts to fix his depth perception problem…
People are waaaaaaay too hung up on stats vs. scouting.
You’re all aware that successful baseball teams existed for a long time before current statistical tools were available, right?
No organization at this stage of things should completely ignore statistical analysis (and we have ZERO evidence that Zduriencik would, and I’m not sure why people aren’t willing to give him the benefit of the doubt), but good scouting is still a very viable way to identify quality talent.
Bavasi was labeled as a “scouting” guy but the reality is that he was terrible at evaluating major league talent; Zduriencik by all accounts is an excellent evaluator of talent at all levels, so the “more of the same” theories are pretty far out of line.
If you’re referring to my comments, they really aren’t in the vein of more of the same, at least not in the way your argument suggests.
Rather, I’ve argued that a world class swimmer with an anchor tied to his waist will swim slower. An Olympic breast stroker might not be an olympic freestyler….
Seeing talent and knowing how to properly pay for it are two different things. Tragically, Bavasi struggled at both. Zduriencik is a good bet to be better at the evaluating part but I’m not sure why the valuing part should be considered a given.
It was more directed at the tone in general we’ve seen since the hire, but even still:
It shouldn’t, necessarily, but the Brewers built a successful organization in a situation where they were forced to be efficient with their payroll.
If he’s a smart guy (which everyone seems to agree that he is) he should have picked up on at least some of that.
As far as the autonomy issue goes, there really isn’t any reason to be as pessimistic about it as people are right now.
For all we know right now, Zduriencik could have said right during the interview process “either you give me a freer hand than you gave Bavasi or I’m staying in Milwaukee”.
People just need to back away from the cliff a bit.
You’re all aware that successful baseball teams existed for a long time before current statistical tools were available, right?
Right – and a good club would blend both – I don’t think anyone’s disputing that.
It’s just that Z seems the least likely out of the 4 to even try to blend in analysis while also being the most likely to have made management feel warm and fuzzy about their approach of the four candidates.
oh, yay! callers are saying what they want to tell Zod (”get rid of Ichiro, and get speed, they need speed in that ballpark”)
well, no. They interviewed LaCava, DiPoto, Woodfork, Ng & Bernazard, then Zduriencik on the following Monday after the Brewers were eliminated. DiPoto, Ng, LaCava and Zduriencik all got call backs.
per Hickey today:
“All of the candidates for the job — seven interviewed, five from outside the organization and two from the inside — were asked to address the future. They were asked about their long-term approach to get the Mariners back to respectability in a three-, four- or five-year plan. And they were asked how they would get the Mariners ready to be competitive in 2009.”
well, no. They interviewed LaCava, DiPoto, Woodfork, Ng & Bernazard, then Zduriencik on the following Monday after the Brewers were eliminated. DiPoto, Ng, LaCava and Zduriencik all got call backs.
My bad, I just re-read Dave’s original post from when Z entered the picture. You’re right.
“All of the candidates for the job — seven interviewed, five from outside the organization and two from the inside — were asked to address the future. They were asked about their long-term approach to get the Mariners back to respectability in a three-, four- or five-year plan. And they were asked how they would get the Mariners ready to be competitive in 2009.”
Is it me or is that really odd – they’re planning to be competitive next year but then only respectable in the years that follow?
I guess it makes sense depending on how you define ‘competitive.’
he’s not a team player, you know, because he won’t lay down a bunt.
it depends on if those are Hickey’s words, or the phrasing actually used by someone in the FO.
Zduriencik
But he will also have the budget here.
He’s #2 to Jed Hoyer on this list prepared by Will Carroll on June 18th who I have learned to have some respect for. It seems to me that he thought early this summer that he’s one of the best young talents out there for an open Gm spot, ahead of Woodfork, Hahn, Rizzo, LaCava, etc. in overall talents and connections. He also speaks specifically about Antonetti, saying “Antonetti seems locked in with the Indians, and essentially removes himself from our list, though his name’s going to keep coming up whenever a GM job does become available.” He didn’t prepare the list with the M’s GM spot in mind and it’s possible he would have listed him lower for the particular job and I find it likely Hoyer would still have been in the top spot. I won’t view this as a bad hire and don’t see how people can when all the people they should be listening to have praise for him as a hire for GM. Everything is speculation at this point which is nothing worth getting upset about. Let’s see some moves because those have to happen before the draft ever comes around. I think most of us expect good things from the draft so the things we are speculating on are the first to come, let’s all watch them happen with intrigue rather than guessing at them all with disgust.
I think you hit it on the head, Jeff. It seems the either/or dilemma of stats & scouting has been severely blown out of proportion. I’m all for using advanced statistical tools to evaluate players, but you have to remember that all of those tools are built on the back of good scouting.
As far as the GM is concerned, what really matters is the result of the evaluation, not the method. We have no reason yet to believe that Z sucks at major league talent evaluation – in fact we have several reasons to believe he’s rather good at it. And if that means we won’t be signing more Carlos Silva’s and Jose Vidro’s, and will instead be picking up Brad Nelson’s and Gabe Kapler’s…well then this is a major step for the franchise.
Now if they had gone with Bernazard, I could understand the ire…but come on, guys. This is a good thing.
msb, why do you still torture yourself by listening to KJR?
Also:
What are you basing this on, other than the fact that Zduriencik’s reputation (yes, I’m spelling it out each time on purpose) is based on scouting acumen rather than a stats-oriented background?
I haven’t seen any reason to believe that he would’ve told Armstrong and Lincoln anything but, “your organization has sucked at evaluating and valuing talent at the MLB level for several years in a row.”
There’s just no reason to already be stamping the guy as a yes-man just because you think that’s what the organization was looking for.
Gee, no. You mean in the past some teams won and others lost?
You know, before advances in the modern automobile, car races often had winners. But can I extrapolate that a Model T would be competitive in NASCAR now?
It is the opposite of ridiculous to want to know where the new GM stands on advanced metrics. And this is the last place where I would have expected to have that desire mocked.
Skipping the many reasons that history says dictates exactly that skepticism… why are you satisfied with “zero evidence” against instead of wanting “>0 evidence” FOR?
Far out of line? We were told the same things about Bavasi. It may very well turn out to be unwarranted, but far out of line? Hardly.
Disappointment is not the same as panic.
Take Chuck and Howard out of the discussion and all I want is to know more about the guy. But instead there is actual scorn about not assuming blindly that he cares about all aspects of evaluation.
Give the pessimistic a little breathing room here.
What are you basing this on, other than the fact that Zduriencik’s reputation (yes, I’m spelling it out each time on purpose) is based on scouting acumen rather than a stats-oriented background?
Because of what I’ve read on this site. In short, he’s the least likely to bring in the stats part of the equation that’s been missing.
Patrick Ebert today: “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…”
Dave yesterday: “Now, Jack Z isn’t exactly the new school analytical type we were all hoping for.”
Dave on the 16th: “Baker adds that Jack Zduriencik is the fourth candidate, who didn’t come out in the prior reports because he interviewed Monday, after Milwaukee got eliminated. He’s a tremendous scouting director, responsible for most of the talent the Brewers currently have, but is less statistically inclined than the other three.”
The part about him being more likely (I didn’t say certain, now did I?) to make management feel warm an fuzzy is conjecture based on the general vibe I’ve gotten from this site about what upper management is looking for. Stuff I’ve read here over the past few years.
I know. You think you’re to hear something from a Milwaukee reporter on Zduriencik, and instead you get callers with…
“trade Ichiro”
“spend a lot of money to get the best pitching coach in baseball, starting with the bullpen, because lead after lead in the 8th inning was blown. And play Willie Bloomquist all the time.”
“spring for some solid veterans to solidify the pitching staff around those awesome young pitchers”
“sign those no. 1 draft picks, and stop shying away from ‘hard to sign’ draftees” (which leads to Gas’ interesting comparison between signing & playing “that kid they drafted” and “that kid for the Rays” who’s now pitching with so little major league experience)
“bring Griffey back, because he’s way loved in this town”
I’m starting to think the only thing that would have satisfied a lot of commenters is Lee, Chuck and Howard committing ritual hara-kiri in front of Safeco Field, followed by Yamauchi announcing the new GM and President of the Seattle Mariners was going to be a cyborg combination of Billy Beane, Theo Epstein and Chris Antonetti. Anything else? Massive disappointment.
Come ON, people. Hint: you might recognize that the GM PRIOR to Bavasi seemed to do a tolerable job with the same bosses, and is STILL a reasonably competent GM at getting a team into the playoffs.
I value endorsements from those I respect quite a lot. And there aren’t many I respect more than the authors here.
But that in no way puts responsibility for my reaction in their hands.
There are things that I wanted in this hire and from this organization. Things that I was hoping and rooting for. At this point the scorecard is:
1. Organization – FAIL – Chuck and Howard still here.
2. New GM – INCOMPLETE – I know he’s respected and has had success. I do not know whether his approach will be new or “the same but better.” The evidence seems to point to the latter, but the jury is out. We just don’t have the information.
Wanting that information is not unreasonable. Neither is waiting on getting too excited until I have it.
Hint: you might recognize that the GM PRIOR to Bavasi seemed to do a tolerable job with the same bosses, and is STILL a reasonably competent GM at getting a team into the playoffs.
Who also has a reputation for taking a team on the cusp and bringing them over the top with high price free agents while decimating the farm system. Then topping it off by bailing before the bottom falls out.
Where did you learn to be skeptical of the M’s decision-making son?
From you USSM! I learned it by reading you!
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.
EC – why is wanting a change in management remotely close to wanting them to kill themselves?
Why the derision for people pessimistic about an organization that has been… what? Bad? Awful? Historically incompetent?
Didn’t people get enough of that mocking when they dared to complain about the Bedard trade on Baker’s blog? Do they feel the need to pass on the same mentality to people skeptical about something that they themselves aren’t skeptical about?
Armstrong and Lincoln were never going anywhere, and if your main criteria for a successful GM hire involved them leaving the organization, then even Ng or Antonetti wouldn’t have made you happy, and we’d be having this same conversation.
Being skeptical is fine, but the tone of comments I’ve been seeing is WAY past skeptical, into pointlessly pessimistic.
At least let the guy do some work for the M’s that we can evaluate before we start chalking him up as a failure, eh?
Perfect. That’s what I was just thinking.
This site spends years telling me that results-based decision making is imperfect, to always look at the process… and then in this instance, people are saying look at his results, give the benefit of the doubt to the process, it doesn’t matter how he gets there.
Who also has a reputation for taking a team on the cusp and bringing them over the top with high price free agents while decimating the farm system. Then topping it off by bailing before the bottom falls out.
Right, but the argument being rebutted is “Howard and Chuck means WE ARE TEH D00M3Z0RED no matter who’s GM” (which is provably false, since the Mariners have won with different GMs and the same President/CEO), not “Pat Gillick has no weaknesses as a GM” (which I will happily stipulate).
Look, the bottom line is the team hired someone who’s widely respected in the industry and spent their time interviewing the right people, as opposed to, say, letting Lee Pelekoudas retain his job, or hiring Jim Beattie or someone of his ilk as a retread (either of which would have been “let’s rearrange some deck chairs” moves). This isn’t cause for sackcloth and ashes, it’s progress. There’s still more to be made, but at least the organization is going in the right direction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
What an absurd characterization of my position.
Go strawman someone else, ok?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
To expand on what Dave’s saying a little, from my point of view:
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.
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.
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.
say, you know what would be cool?
some sort of blogosphere get-together where the new GM comes to talk with us all.
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.”
some sort of blogosphere get-together where the new GM comes to talk with us all.
We’re working on it.
I bet Bill would give us a good recommendation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.