.
Interesting thoughts recently at Ask Bill, who charges a lot less than Dr. D would in his shoes (hint, hint)...
This one goes to the issue of, "What do you think a famous sabermetrician would learn, once he became a de facto assistant GM? How would his view of the world CHANGE?"
This is in that territory. It's therefore super fascinating. To me, anyway.
...........
I'm curious as to your views on what factors we should or shouldn't adjust for when calculating a time line adjustment to rate old-time players against modern players. I'd think we should adjust for factors that affect who's on the field (the color line, the lack of a well-organized system to get the best players into the majors in the early days, the ratio of teams to population), but not adjust for factors that would affect everybody equally (improvements in nutrition, training methods, equipment etc.--if Home Run Baker came back he'd have the benefit of all those things the same as modern players do). Also, I would think the time line adjustment for baseball would be less than in a sport like track, because it's hard to see how hand-eye co-ordination would progress over time the way speed and strength do. Your thoughts?
Asked by: Rich Dunstan
Answered: 9/11/2013
I don't know the right answer.
Just my opinion. . .before we get to THAT question, we have to think more clearly about the quality of play overall. Something I never really understood, before I started working in the game, inside the game rather than outside, is
a) How hard everybody works all of the time to get an edge, and
b) How fast this drives the overall quality of the game forward.
My perception, before I worked for the Red Sox, was that process of trying to improve teams was offset by natural aging/breakage, keeping the game essentially on a treadmill. My perception NOW is that teams work so hard to improve constantly that they DO improve constantly--all of them. There have been a thousand little innovations in the game in the last ten years, innovations that spread rapidly from one team to another, so that a team that doesn't work hard to keep up would get very rapidly left behind.
These innovations occur so rapidly and yet so gradually that they're virtually impossible to document. We just do a lot of things differently--and better--now as opposed to 2003. Everybody does. Some of those things could be grafted onto Home Run Baker; others couldn't.
I guess what I am saying is that accurate generalization requires clarity, and I just don't have enough clarity on this issue to generalize about it in a way that would be useful. - Bill
.................
Hi Bill. Re: Your answer to Rich Dunstan's question- Could you give some examples of ways teams have improved in the last ten years?
Asked by: izzy24
Answered: 9/11/2013
Ten years ago teams had a training staff of one or two people. Now we have staffs of people. . .trainers who speak Japanese and double as interpretors. The trainers are half doctors now, some of them. They're veteran people who know the athlete's body better than a doctor does.
We're much more aggressive in using the options process to keep 25 players on the major league roster who are ready to play. Ten years ago if you had a reliever who had a tired arm, you'd wait it out. Now you DL him, call up somebody else and let the other guys' arm come back.
All of the information that is produced by our field is mined by the operations guys and put to practical use pretty much immediately. Ten years ago we knew SOMETHING about where each hitter was likely to hit the ball. We know a lot more now.
Ten years ago we'd have a scouting report that said "Will use the change to RHB on occasion." Now we know how many changeups and sliders and cutters and curves the pitcher throws to right-handers and left-handers.
Ten years ago we hardly scouted the Far East. Now we've got scouts everywhere checking out rumors of a baseball player. The Dodgers got Ryu out of some league that hardly existed ten years ago.
Ten years ago the Dominican Development Leagues were just getting started.
A lot of things are proprietary. . .stuff that the Red Sox do that I'm not sure whether other teams are doing it yet or not. - Bill
..............
Q. Back to SSI and Dr. D now. On strictly baseball terms -- no corporate branding factored in -- would Dr. D consider a Clayton Kershaw contract to be a wise investment?
A. Personally, I suspected that Bill's point (above) was the case. But it's interesting to hear him deliver the intel in such sharp resolution. In just ten years, the evolution of the game has left the 2001 Mariners (semi-) obsolete? That's quite a meditation point.
.
A. Big lesson learned for me, the last few years:
Left hand starters, with electric stuff and any sort of reasonable mechanics, play very well in 21st-century baseball.
Hey, guys. This game is evolving on a week-to-week basis. As it does, those LHP's are moving more and more to the front. VIVA K-Pax!
Just my opinion,
Dr D