- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is a long but interesting read describing how each front office operates. Well it doesn’t go into detail about every team but it does place each front office on a spectrum chart based on passive vs aggressive and traditional vs progressive. They list the Cards as a passive traditional front office.
I like to collect my thoughts about various trends within the game annually into a state of the industry of sorts.
This year's is 4,000+ words and was sparked by the trade deadline.
Scouting vs. stats is dead. Seeking risk is how GMs separate themselves. https://t.co/0FD6iRAlDA pic.twitter.com/WF9r0902pt
— Kiley McDaniel (@kileymcd) September 16, 2020
I agree with the hedging/low risk description but I figured they would be more towards the progressive/analytics side of the spectrum.
I think they attempted to use objective data to reach their conclusions but I am not totally clear on how they obtained the data. Some teams would be more obvious than others on how they operate but hopefully the data came from multiple sources.
but I figured they would be more towards the progressive/analytics side
I don’t get the impression the Cardinals are all that advanced in analytics.
When I think of analytically inclined teams, I am thinking Astros and Dodgers. I’ve seen numerous reports of pitchers going to the Astros and being amazed at how they prep them for games. The Dodgers have been using split advantages for years. Neither of those attributes have I heard associated with the Cardinals.
I am just following along the narrative of Dewitt choosing Mo over Jocketty with instructions to operate on more of a build from within approach with an emphasis on analytics. Lunhow actually helped build the analytic department here didn’t he? Is that department now gone?
It is also my impression that one of the things that got Matheny in trouble here was his lack of analytic knowledge or unwillingness to learn.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.