It’s been quite a long time since my last post, I know. The past few weeks have been a whirlwind of job applications and disgust regarding the Kansas City Royals. I want to keep this post a little more informal than many of the others that I’ve written for the website. In fact, I may not perform any statistical analysis whatsoever! I suppose that is one of the few advantages of being an ametuer writer with no editor and no mandate for quality. If I write something that sucks and bores the reader I’ll make 13 cents in ad revenue as opposed to 25 cents. I’m not so concerned with entertaining as I am with writing pieces that sufficiently fill the void left inside of myself by the end of the baseball season. Who knows, once baseball comes back I may no longer have a need for this website. However, in the interests of playing it safe I think I’ll renew my hosting plan in January. Now, let’s provoke some thoughts!
I wanted to explore the different team building strategies that I’ve observed in Major League Baseball. By doing this I hope to uncover patterns within the current system that seem to be more effective than others. Sadly, it is very difficult to come to an immediate conclusion about the way a team is running its operations. The James Shields – Wil Myers trade, for instance, won’t provide us with a definite conclusion about itself for another five or so years. In that same vein it is highly difficult to tell which current teams will be the most successful five years from now. However, I do feel as though there are certain teams with team building models that will fare better than others. What I tried to do is to separate all 30 major league teams into seven different categories. Some of these categories are larger than others and not every team rigidly fits into the category assigned. I attempted to look at recent history, future projections, and front office acumen in determining which group to place each team.
Projected Organizational Categories
The Thinkers
These are teams without money that rely heavily on advanced metrics and exploiting market inefficiencies. The Rays are the clear shining example of this model usurping the Athletics of the early 2000s. The Astros may seem like a very odd choice for this category. I might have agreed with you in 2010, but their recent ownership change and the hiring of David Stearns leads me to believe that there are brighter days ahead for the Astros. These days may take place in 2016, but they will be brighter days nonetheless.
- Tampa Bay Rays
- Houston Astros (formally lost)
- Oakland Athletics
The Spenders
These are teams that spend. A lot. Now, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t talented in any other ways. I feel as though Brian Cashman is one of the better GMs in baseball and many of these teams have solid scouting departments as well. Still, the driving factor behind building these teams has been money. All of these teams have been fairly successful as of late. Money doesn’t buy championships, but it can give you a decent shot at competing every year. If there’s anything that the baseball community should have learned over the past few years is that the playoffs are a crap shoot. The important thing is to get in and these teams all stand a very strong chance of getting in over the next five seasons.
- LA Dodgers
- New York Yankees
- LA Angels
- Detroit Tigers
- Boston Red Sox
- Philadelphia Phillies
The Hybrids
These are teams that fit two or more of the above categories well enough to not be considered “lost”, but still don’t fit into a single archetype. These teams have been fairly successful recently as a group. The Cubs are a clear outlier, but I feel like with their budget and front office talent they will be a part of this group going forward. I’m clearly biased in my opinion of the Texas Rangers, but I have to say that I feel like they’re one of the best run organizations in baseball. I admire their restraint in dealing Elvis Andrus and Jurickson Profar and also their willingness to spend when they have to (Yu Darvish). Some other clubs may have given Josh Hamilton 7/160m, but the Rangers knew his value would depreciate as the offseason dragged on and now will hopefully sign him to something reasonable. I just hope they can translate their prudence into a few championships sooner than later.
- Texas Rangers
- Chicago Cubs
- Miami Marlins
- Toronto Blue Jays
- St. Louis Cardinals
- Seattle Mariners
- Washington Nationals
The Scouts
These are teams that draft well, make strong under-the-radar free agent signings, have a strong internal development process, or a combination of the above. The Braves, for instance, have succeeded despite a relatively small payroll compared to their market. They thrive by drafting young players who are effective in the major leagues while making at or near the league minimum. The Giants seem to have an endless supply of waiver wire pickups ready to make an impact at the big league level and the San Diego has turned into a pitching factory.
- Atlanta Braves
- Cincinnati Reds
- Milwaukee Brewers
- Minnesota Twins
- San Francisco Giants
- San Diego Padres
The Lost
In this group I included teams that may fit a few of the above categories, but did not fit any of them convincingly enough to be included. Not all of these teams are bad, but one might notice that most of them are. These teams tend to shift gear between the other categories frequently and seem to have little to no direction. They would likely benefit from stronger front office personnel or a series of fortunate draft picks.
- Chicago White Sox
- Baltimore Orioles
- Arizona Diamondbacks
- Cleveland Indians
- New York Mets
- Pittsburgh Pirates
The Almost Royals
Not quite awful enough to be included with the Royals, but just one horrible move from being relegated to the lower division. Just like an English league football (soccer) teams the Rockies must quickly improve their performance as an organization in order to avoid this fate.
- Colorado Rockies
The Royals
Dayton Moore. Do I really need to say more? No? Well, I’m going to list a series of Dayton Moore puns whether or not you want me to or not.
No More Moore!
Dayton Moore? More like Dayton SNORE
No Moore years! (like four more years, but different!)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- Kansas City Royals
Maybe I’m being too hard on the Royals, but probably not. There’s not much that I can say about them that you have not already read, so I’ll resist the temptation. I also want to clarify that this list is one that is likely to be a fluid one. By fluid I mean that it is a versatile document that is volatile and very apt to change from year to year. A few good front office hirings, free agent signings, or draft picks can quickly change the face of an organization. Because of this I feel it is important to not make too many damning conclusions about any organization. The bottom-dweller can very quickly become the top-dog. Baseball itself is a highly volatile game based on millions of individual moments that add up to the final standings. Each moment can swing many different ways. I realize this sounds like butterfly effect bullshit, but I’ve found it holds true.
I am very interested to hear any reader comments regarding my pigeonholing of Major League Baseball. Should I add any more categories? Too Many? Let me know!
-Chris Rice