ESPN analytics rankings

[fipp]

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings#!mlb

<ALL-IN>
Boston Red Sox
Chicago Cubs
Cleveland Indians
Houston Astros
New York Yankees
Oakland A's
Pittsburgh Pirates
St. Louis Cardinals
Tampa Bay Rays

<BELIEVERS>
Baltimore Orioles
Kansas City Royals
Los Angeles Dodgers
New York Mets
San Diego Padres
Toronto Blue Jays
Washington Nationals

<ONE FOOT IN>
Chicago White Sox
Los Angeles Angels
Milwaukee Brewers
San Francisco Giants
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers

<SKEPTICS>
Arizona Diamondbacks
Atlanta Braves
Cincinnati Reds
Colorado Rockies
Detroit Tigers
Minnesota Twins

<NONBELIEVERS>
Miami Marlins
Philadelphia Phillies


For instance, Bochy utilized the stolen base and sacrifice bunt less than any other NL manager in 2014, saying, "I believe in going for the bigger inning."

That's quite the opposite of what the Reds (Price) do.

[JoshBresser]

Notice how most of the teams in the "Skeptics" and "Nonbelievers" categories suck. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[RedlegJake]

Notice how most of the teams in the "Skeptics" and "Nonbelievers" categories suck. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Notice how much success those same teams have had overall, though, the last few years. Then look at the Cubs and Astros all in for analytics. I'm not sure this really proves anything. Still, I'd personally like the Reds to move up toward the all in category. I believe in analytics - I just don't believe this particular chart proves anything.

[757690]

For the record, the winning percentages over the last three years for the teams in each division is as follows:

All In - .502
Believers - .517
One Foot In - .503
Skeptics - .491
Non Believers - .448

On a separate note, I find the divisions to be rather arbitrary, and pretty much any team in the middle three could be in any of the middle three divisions. In other words, while there are quite a few teams that are heavy into advanced stats (with mixed results), the vast majority are still using a mixture of stats and scouting (also with mixed results.)

[kramer1]

For the record, the winning percentages over the last three years for the teams in each division is as follows:

All In - .502
Believers - .517
One Foot In - .503
Skeptics - .491
Non Believers - .448

On a separate note, I find the divisions to be rather arbitrary, and pretty much any team in the middle three could be in any of the middle three divisions. In other words, while there are quite a few teams that are heavy into advanced stats (with mixed results), the vast majority are still using a mixture of stats and scouting (also with mixed results.)

Kinda proves it's a load of nonsense, doesn't it? What matters most is payroll.

20. Chicago White Sox $91,159,254
21. San Diego Padres $90,094,196
22. NY Mets $89,051,758
23. Chicago Cubs $89,007,857
24. Minnesota Twins $85,776,500
25. Oakland A's $83,401,400
26. Cleveland Indians $82,534,800
27. Pittsburgh Pirates $78,111,667
28. Tampa Bay Rays $77,062,891
29. Miami Marlins $47,565,400
30. Houston Astros $44,544,174

See a pattern here?

[gilpdawg]

Kinda proves it's a load of nonsense, doesn't it? What matters most is payroll.

20. Chicago White Sox$91,159,254
21. San Diego Padres$90,094,196
22. NY Mets$89,051,758
23. Chicago Cubs$89,007,857
24. Minnesota Twins$85,776,500
25. Oakland A's$83,401,400
26. Cleveland Indians$82,534,800
27. Pittsburgh Pirates$78,111,667
28. Tampa Bay Rays$77,062,891
29. Miami Marlins$47,565,400
30. Houston Astros$44,544,174

See a pattern here?

Some of those teams aren't bad because of a low payroll.... They decided to do a teardown rebuild, which leads to a low payroll. When the Astros or Cubs decide to go for it they can spend as much as anyone not in NY, Boston, or LA.