An Announcement Regarding Our Prospect Coverage
On Monday, Kiley McDaniel announced that he was leaving his position as FanGraphs Lead Prospect Analyst, having been offered a job as Assistant Director of Baseball Operations by the Atlanta Braves. When Kiley called me a few weeks ago to give me the news, I wasn’t surprised; this isn’t the first time a team had shown interest in him, and we knew it was inevitable that he was going to get offered a job he couldn’t pass up. The quality and quantity of work he did was simply too strong of a resume to ignore, and it was clear that this point would eventually come.
Kiley leaves a big void in our staff, and we’re certainly aware of the fact that it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to step in and simply pick up where he left off. Between his time working for three previous organizations and almost every media outlet that covers prospects, Kiley was about as connected to people in and around the game as anyone I’ve ever been around. He traveled extensively, seeing as many players in person as he could, and ended up doing things like having lunch with Yoan Moncada.
But beyond just traveling to see players, shooting video, writing up reports, and gathering valuable information from people in the game, he also helped push the creation of some back-end tools that led to things like the scouting grades that now appear on the player pages, as well as sortable pages with four years’ worth of information on the draft and the international players of interest who signed in July. He didn’t just produce content; he overhauled what prospect coverage at FanGraphs looked like.
Through his efforts, Kiley took our prospect coverage and made it a strength of the site. With that foundation in place, it would be foolish to go backwards, and so over the last few weeks, David Appelman and I have had numerous conversations about how to replace him, and who we want to take what he started and continue to build from where it is now. During those conversations, we talked about what we think makes a good prospect analyst, and what we want to emphasize to give you guys something you won’t find somewhere else.
The thing we kept coming back to was that we wanted someone who not only could offer their own perspective and evaluations, but someone with the ability to substantively explain the process that got them to that conclusion. FanGraphs is a process-driven site in many ways, and explaining the why and how is often as important as the result, so we wanted someone who was as interested in the process as in the conclusions. Especially with the tremendous amount of uncertainty that goes along with forecasting players in their teens and early twenties, we thought it was important that our prospect coverage not just be focused on the current crop of prospects — though those players are clearly the vehicle that the discussions will ride upon — but about the various theories that go into projecting future growth.
Of all the things Kiley did really well, I think his willingness to openly explore his process and explain the ideas behind his opinions is what really set him apart. To keep this ship going in what we feel is a strong direction, we wanted to make sure that we looked for someone who shared that same desire, and we felt we were very fortunate to already know someone who fits that mold, and was extremely interested in pursuing this opportunity. So, without further ado, I’m pleased to announce that Dan Farnsworth begins work today as the new Lead Prospect Analyst here at FanGraphs.
Our background with Dan is a pretty fun story. Back in January of 2013, he published a post on the Community Blog entitled “Is Rebuilding Worth It?” It remains, in my opinion, one of the most interesting pieces we’ve ever published over there, and was clearly the product of a significant amount of research. I really liked the piece, and we exchanged a few emails, where I encouraged him to keep submitting pieces, as I interested to see what else he could do.
It took him four months — he was working full time as a hitting instructor, so he didn’t have time to get his nose out of the game and into a spreadsheet — before he sent me a note saying he’d uploaded a second piece, but this one was nothing like his first article.
This piece, entitled “Breaking Down The Swing: Best Hitters of 2012” used video analysis to discuss some of the concepts that are often bandied about when teaching hitters how to put their swings together, and looking at what Major League players actually do in order to see how many of them are doing the kinds of things kids are often taught in lower levels. It was a complete departure from what he did in his first piece, but it was also really interesting and showed that he’d put a lot of work and thought into the analysis, and so we invited him to join the writing team here.
He wrote a couple of follow-up posts in the “Breaking Down the Swing” series, and then later that winter, he decided he wanted to do some deep dives on some specific players. The first one was high profile international free agent Jose Abreu, who he profiled not long after he signed with the White Sox. After providing his analysis based on available videos, he concluded with the following:
I understand the caveats that come with being a foreign player whose value is completely tied to his bat. However, there are just too many good things going on in his swing for him to be a bust, things that only the best hitters in the game do. I do not feel comfortable forecasting a stat line for Abreu’s upcoming season, since I don’t know enough first-hand information about his makeup and current state of mind and body with the defection. However, assuming he is able to make adjustments in a reasonable manner next year, I feel confident in him being a top-25 hitter in the Major Leagues.
I’d say, at this point, Dan’s optimism seems to have been reasonably well founded, but perhaps as importantly, his willingness to walk through the process of his explanation really stood out. He had a strong opinion about Abreu’s likelihood of success, but the piece read almost as a primer on what he liked about swings in general, rather than simply focusing on breaking down Abreu specifically. It was the kind of piece I really enjoyed reading, and wished there was more of in prospect analysis.
After that piece, Dan followed up with an article on Jacoby Ellsbury’s power, and then, right before the winter meetings, he wrote a little-read (at the time) breakdown on a potential Rule 5 pick that he thought had some upside: an outfielder named J.D. Martinez. The conclusion of that piece:
However, the work he has done with his swing may be what pushes him back on track to being a respectable middle of the order threat for a competitive team. The power is not in question, and if his hit tool is really starting to blossom he becomes an exciting player very quickly. The investment is minimal to add him to the mix for a roster spot and see what happens in Spring Training. Even if his injury woes continue for any part of this year, what team would not want to stockpile Rule 5 talent on the DL as added depth to draw on throughout the long season? I think that whoever takes a chance on this guy will be more than happy with the results, and with some continued refinement to his swing we could be looking at a Rule 5 steal for a legitimate Major League power hitter.
It was a sample size of one (or two, including Abreu at that point), but he was the only person I know who saw J.D. Martinez coming. After Martinez got called up to Detroit and instantly became one of the best hitters in baseball, we began to look back at that piece and realize that maybe Dan was onto something. Over the course of the 2014 season, he published some in-depth pieces at The Hardball Times, and then he did a breakdown of Rusney Castillo for us here, offering some skepticism that Castillo would hit for enough power to turn into more than a solid average player.
Then, in February, we published another one of his breakdowns of the newest international free agent signing: Pittsburgh’s infielder Jung-ho Kang. While Kang had hit for power in South Korea, there was a lot of skepticism about how well it would translate in MLB, with Kang signing for just $11 million over four years with the Pirates after a tepid bidding war for his services. Like with Abreu, Dan was bullish, writing the following after explaining why he liked the swing so much:
While Kang did play in a league where video game scores are the norm, you can only discount a player’s production so much because of competition level. With an upper echelon swing and league-leading production in his home country, I will gladly bet on Kang having a spectacular start to his big league career. Throw in the evidence that he has made some recent improvements to his swing that led to a career year, and he may only be getting better as he transitions to Major League Baseball.
…Taking the detestable jump into the predictive, with how hard he hits the ball and assuming only average contact and strikeout rates, I could easily see him hitting .280 with 25 homers, and that might be conservative.
Jung-Ho Kang, as a rookie, hit .287 with 15 homers in 467 plate appearances, on pace for just over 20 homers in a full season’s worth of playing time, and the Pirates decision to bet on his upside now looks like the best signing any team made last winter. Again, Dan’s optimism looks to have been justified.
Of course, he isn’t always going to look like a genius. In the most recent piece he published for us, he walked through some of the reservations he had about Carlos Correa’s power development. Correa has emphatically put most of those concerns to bed, but I appreciated that Dan was willing to not only update his analysis as Correa developed, but also to not be afraid to publicly write what he’d only spoken in private.
Had he never published that article, most people would have never known that Dan wasn’t as high as the industry consensus on Correa heading into this year, and as writers, it’s always tempting to not bother reminding our readers when we miss the mark. But he was willing to do so even when his previous comments about Correa weren’t in the public sphere, and used it as an opportunity to discuss the difficulties and uncertainty in projecting future power. That showed me that he was interested in learning, and possessed the humility to know that he doesn’t have everything figured out.
It’s that kind of piece — plus the time I’ve spent with him on our staff trips over the last few years, in addition to the continuing suspicion that Abreu, Martinez, and Kang are evidence that he really might know what he’s talking about — that gives me confidence that Dan is going to do an excellent job as our primary prospect guy, even though this will be his first time attempting to tackle this outsized task. I’m legitimately excited to see what Dan can do with this role, both from providing his own personal evaluations as well as helping to explain why he reaches the conclusions he does.
We’re going to give Dan the same resources we gave Kiley. He’s joining the staff as a full-time employee, and he’ll begin traveling regularly around the country to see players in person and upload video for the FanGraphs YouTube channel, so you guys can see the players he sees as well. He’s also going to begin writing up the organizational rankings, and we’ll be rolling out our prospect rankings this winter just as we did last winter.
Dan will also be providing scouting grades that will get fed onto the player pages and the sortable boards that Kiley set up, so these features will continue on, and hopefully only get better. And yes, he’ll be chatting and podcasting as well, though given the amount of work that the organizational lists take, we will likely give him a bit of a head start on those before we let you guys start assailing him with questions about random players in rookie ball that you’ve got stashed in your 40 team dynasty league.
We’re well aware of the fact that Kiley left some very big shoes to fill, but we’re really excited to see what Dan brings to the table as well. We’re thrilled you guys enjoyed the increased focus the site put on prospects over the last year, and we think Dan is the right choice to help us continue to provide the kind of insights you came to expect from FanGraphs over the last 12 months. Please welcome Dan to the staff, feel free to ask him questions in his upcoming introductory post, and hit him up on Twitter at @dwfarnsworth. I know he’s looking forward to having some great discussions with you guys, and we’re excited about what the future of prospect coverage looks like here at FanGraphs.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Well done FG! There is no replacing Kiley, but bringing Dan in is very exciting news!
Is his regularly recurring column going to be called “Down on the Farn”?
Congratulations Dan!
We also have to refer to him only by his proper name, Professor Farsnworth.
Good News Everyone!
Once again, the conservative sandwich-heavy farm system pays off for the hungry GM!
Professor Farnsworth after reading article:What a pleasure it is to see my lifetime achievements summed up in 15 short paragraphs… My best years are behind me. So much swing analysis left undone. So little time.
Dave Cameron: Funny, funny stuff.
Good news, everyone! The FBI is bringing me up on major felony charges… wait, that’s not good news at all!
Dave Cameron: Whatever you did professor, I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation.
Professor Farnsworth: Yes, but they won’t listen! Everybody’s in favor of saving Kiley McDaniel’s brain. But when you put it in the body of baseball savvy great white shark – uuuh, suddenly you’ve gone too far.
Goodbye, cruel website. Goodbye, cruel blog posts. Goodbye, cruel Carson Cistulli, surrounded by what would appear to be some kind of cruel aphorism. And the cute little hipster glasses, cruel though they may be…
You consistently have the most clever comments on Fangraphs. Well done!
Good luck, Dan. We’re all counting on you.
awesome move. way to go Dan!
Very excited about Dan being full time. He’s the reason I had JD and Kang on my roster. Look forward to more of his great insights!
Always enjoyed reading Dan’s articles. Looking forward to reading more of his stuff on a regular basis!
While I’m sad to see Kiley go, I’m so happy to see Dan get a bigger role. His analysis is so detailed and unique and he was the only one who saw the JD and Kang breakouts before they became a reality.
Congrats to Dan and great call by FG. Look forward to more of Dan’s work!
Congrats, Dan. Looking forward to reading your work. Remember, you’re not the new Kiley. You’re the new Dan! Hopefully you’re not hired away by some team in the first month.
How will you fill the void of Kiley having such great connections, and Dan appearing to have almost none? There was a lot to like about Kiley’s work, but part of what some of us liked was his connections. No one can see every prospect…… This is not a criticism at all, btw. I look forward to this different perspective, it is a curiosity on my part.
If we had prioritized hiring someone who knew as many people in baseball as Kiley did, we would have to ask Ben Cherington to take the job, probably.
The connections in the game part of the job will develop with time, as he spends time at ballparks and showcases. He’s going to reach out to people within every organization before he publishes his off-season report, and some of those relationships will be cultivated over time. And there are plenty of people in the game who are friends of writers here at FG, so they’ll talk to him because they want to help. His grades and rankings aren’t going to be based solely on his own in-person evaluations, and we certainly recognize that people working for the various teams will have information that we can only get from them if they offer it.
But we’re also realistic about the fact that Dan probably won’t be breaking the next Craig Kimbrel trade. That was just a part of Kiley’s toolbox that came from the fact that he’d been doing this job for years, even before we hired him. It’s unrealistic to think that Dan is going to just waltz in here and have Kiley’s list of contacts in the game, but we’re not expecting him to. We think he can do a great job with what he has to offer. It will look different from what Kiley did, but hopefully stand out on its own accord.
Thanks Dave, I kind of asked because I imagine it is a question you’ll get a lot. I really like his writing, and am excited for him. Good luck to him and you all at FG.
Wow, well said, Dave.
In addition to being sad to lose Kiley, happy to see Dan grow, and still puzzled at Kiley’s hatred of Cistulli… I’m coming away impressed with Dave Cameron, manager.
Wow. This comment really drives home just how special it was to have a guy like Kiley here for as long as you did.
Next man up! haha
I’m just curious, and I know there are always financial constraints, but do you see prospect coverage here growing to more than 1 full time writer/analyst? Dan looks like a great hire, and as you have acknowledged Kiley left some huge shoes to fill, but I think it should also be acknowledged what a huge job it is to put out extensive prospect lists for every team and then an overall top 100+ and cover the draft and July 2. Even the great Kiley often seemed to be behind schedule. I can only think of one person who has been able to do a large chunk of that kind of coverage for a long time as a one-man-show, and that’s John Sickels over at minorleagueball.
For sure. I think the ideal scenario for us always involves having a primary point guy to set the direction and oversee the totality of the coverage, but we also think it’s important for Dan to be recruiting and developing writers to assist him and cover the game in a more comprehensive way than just any one person can. If we can get to a point where we can make a second full-time prospect writer financially viable, that’s definitely something we’ll consider.
And even John’s slowed down since his concussion.
I also think that the job Kiley did was really not a sustainable one. Not for someone who wanted to have a life outside of work. I obviously don’t know for sure, but it seems like David Appelman and Dave Cameron have a general appreciation for those things beyond work; I’d hope that it’s financially feasible to have more than one full-time prospect writer soon.
Dave,
You admitted in your chat the other day that Fangraphs, like much of the community, has a major diversity issue due to lack of women (and persons of color), and claimed you didn’t know how to fix it.
With all due respect, I’ll cut to the chase: why was this position filled by another white guy? I like what I have read of Dan’s work, but he does not have a substantial profile in the prospecting community, and dozens of women writers and analysts would appear to be as or more qualified.
Thanks for your time.
Respectfully, I disagree with the idea that anyone else in the public sphere — man or woman, regardless of race — is as qualified for this position as Dan is. We weren’t concerned with the size of the profile in the prospecting community, and I don’t think notoriety is a good proxy for qualification.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but you just hired a dude who has written about 20 pieces between your site and Hardball Times, nearly none of them about prospects. Selling that as the most qualified candidate just does not pass the smell test.
Gatekeeping in this manner is a real problem and I am disappointed that one of my favorite sites on the Internet only gives it lip service. Do better.
These are valid criticisms on a general level, but what do you or I know about the particularities of this hiring? Dan’s skills are evident even in the small sample we have, and though they’re idiosyncratic I think it’s fair that Fangraphs would attempt to do something out of the ordinary given how much straight-ahead prospect analysis there already is out there. Out of curiosity, what other candidates were you thinking of?
Jay, no one will disagree than integration is of vital importance in baseball — and all walks of life, really. However, you’re not doing anyone a service by moving the goal posts (sorry, wrong site for a football analogy). You literally asked Dave to explain Dan’s qualifications that supported his hire, and then when Dave rattled off a well-rounded skill-set, you honed in on a few points and suggested those were the only reasons he was hired. Dave didn’t indicate that his playing experience was a primary reason for hiring him, and he didn’t even subtly hint that it was anything more than a small piece of the pie. Inclusion is a must, I can’t stress this enough, but you’re not helping women or minorities when you rip apart a qualified person’s resume and toss aside what doesn’t fit your agenda. Dave’s clearly expressing a desire to improve the hiring process and diversify the talent pool covering baseball, and you’re building straw men. Not shame on Dave, shame on you. If your idea of “helping” isn’t constructive criticism, you’re just the type of arm chair quarterback who isn’t helping anyone.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but quantity of pieces published is not how I judge the qualifications of an analyst. If you want to discuss Dan’s actual qualifications for the job — his time as a college ballplayer, his work as a professional hitting instructor, his coaching experience, his year as a full-time scout for Inside Edge, his thousands of hours of watching video and breaking down swing mechanics — I’ll be happy to talk about why we felt he was definitively the best option for us at this time. If you think that that none of that matters and we’re simply not interesting in finding talented minority writers — despite the fact that we employed and promoted Wendy Thurm’s work for the last several years — then I don’t think I can help you any further.
Listing off those qualifications is *exactly* the kind of gatekeeping I am talking about. We both know the pool of women college players is basically Sarah Hudek alone, and that women coaches and scouts are essentially nonexistent. If you create those as the qualifications for your hiring, you’ve locked out all women. This is how white dudes pass jobs to other white dudes.
At no point did I say, or have we ever said, that Dan’s specific qualifications were the required experience necessary to fill this position. If playing and coaching were requirements, we wouldn’t have Kiley. I was pushing back against your oversimplification that Dan is a random guy with no experience in the position because of the quantity of posts he’s published in the public sphere.
As I said in the post, Dan got our attention because he submitted quality content to the Community Blog, which is open to everyone. Any person of any gender or ethnic background who submits high-quality work to the Community Blog will almost instantly be considered for a position here at FG. One of our previous minority hires out of the Community Blog now works for the Chicago Cubs; he was so good we couldn’t keep him for very long.
The lack of minority representation in the baseball community is a problem, and one we are very much interested in helping solve. To any minority reading this, please, feel free to show us what you can do. We’d love to have you.
Not trying to denigrate Wendy (who is fantastic & thoughtful in her work), but it makes me uncomfortable that you’re essentially using her as a token in this comment, Dave.
With respect, if you can only think of one woman or minority whose work your site has featured in 5 years, how can you possibly think you’ve done a good job in finding and promoting minority writers?
Even a cursory look at our author archives will reveal more than just one minority in the last five years. The most recent addition to our part-time staff, hired a month ago, is a minority. But maybe we haven’t done a good enough job; that’s certainly possible. I’d be happy to have an actual conversation with anyone who wants to have a productive talk about how we could do better. But I don’t think it’s productive to assail Dan’s qualifications for this specific job in the process of making a larger point, and jumping to the conclusion that we’re not interested in helping promote minority writers because we hired Dan is a dramatic oversimplification of the situation.
It’s difficult to tell that from names alone, I’m sure you’d agree, but fair enough. I also understand your point about wanting to defend your current hire.
But to narrow things to women writers, in particular, having had only one woman who’s written for the site sends the message, even if not intended, that our voices aren’t of interest. (Particularly when the only woman has a extensive background in law and wrote largely about that subject, not the baseball and player analysis most every other writer does.) That’s why you’re less likely to get submissions from women: if no woman’s ever had a job here writing commentary on baseball as it’s played, it makes it prohibitively difficult for someone to put herself forward as the first.
That’s why it would be nice to see, for future openings, more of a concerted effort to actually reach out to women specifically. I hope that’s something you’ll consider.
Absolutely; we would love to have more women writers, and I’m sure we can do more to make that point known. We’ll work on doing what we can to help promote women writers and analysts, and look for ways to make that clear in future hirings.
Actually when it comes to prospects your reputation is everything and hiring a total no one means it’s going to be years before Fangraphs goes back to where Kiley was
I wrote for FanGraphs for 3 years. Yes, in the last year or so, I concentrated on legal and business issues, but I also wrote a ton about baseball as well. That’s also been true for my writing at other major sports websites.
We all need to do much much more to diversify sports writing. It’s not just baseball or stats. I made a point of this when I was at FG and continue to make a point of this in my writing and on social medial.
I do what I can to mentor aspiring women sports writers — emails, phone calls, coffees, whatever. What do I say? Write, write, write. Read everything you can in the area you want to focus on. Be aggressive in sending your work around on social media. Promote yourself however you can. Will that work for everyone? No. But you have to be your own best advocate.
IF anyone wants to talk with me about these issues or their own writing, I’m available at hangingsliders@gmail.com.
How is giving the job to someone simply because they are non-white NOT racist? How is giving the job to a woman simply because of her gender NOT sexist? Equal opportunity is anything but an equal opportunity when preference is given to someone strictly based on the pigmentation of someone’s skin.
This is a GREAT hire, Dave! I love Dan’s work and am looking forward to seeing it more often. There aren’t many in the business better than him when it comes to evaluating swings.
“The lack of minority representation in the baseball community is a problem, and one we are very much interested in helping solve. To any minority reading this, please, feel free to show us what you can do. We’d love to have you.”
— Dave Cameron
Light the virtue signalling lamp!
In the last year, my baseball web site reading shifted from like 50/50 Fangraphs / BP to 90/10 Fangraphs / BP … largely because of Kiley. As a result, while I knew it was inevitable, the news of his departure left me a little … melancholy.
But I have to say I’m excited by the hire … seriously. Looking forward to reading his work.
Same here.
I think Dan is an outstanding choice that aligns really well with FanGraphs, but I also think the point made above about industry contacts is a huge one. Part of what made Kiley’s work so good was that he seemed to have more/better access to industry opinions on more players than just about anyone else out there. That fact that he was a good process guy was icing on the cake and made him a better fit for this website, but I think a lot of the traffic he generated occurred merely because he could tell people useful things about a prospect that you didn’t see (without paying for it) anywhere else.
Again, I think Dan was a fantastic hire considering the angle that we’d expect FanGraphs to take. But – through no fault of his own – I also suspect the site’s ability to relay industry sentiment about dozens and dozens of 35 or 40 FV prospects for each team could disappear. I don’t think that’s crippling at all for FanGraphs. I do think it’s going to turn a subset of the readership back toward more familiar prospecting sites like BP.
And yes, he’ll be chatting and podcasting as well, though given the amount of work that the organizational lists take, we will likely give him a bit of a head start on those before we let you guys start assailing him with questions about random players in rookie ball that you’ve got stashed in your 40 team dynasty league.
How did you know??? You’re the best Dave.
Love this hire. Rare that you see a guy who has already been able to make bold correct predictions based on actual personal evaluation, that have gone against the general consensus.
The examples of Dan’s work you cite speak for themselves – he already imo has more credibility than many of the more famous internet scouting conglomerator opinions whose opinion seems to be little more than collecting other people’s opinions (replete with the biases of whichever people he relies on most), and whose attempts to make unique projections have a poor track record of success.
Great hire – the kind that falls in line with the unique approach which made Fangraphs so great in the first place.
Dave, glad this is a process-driven site. And thanks for giving us a look into the process of deciding on bringing Dan on board to step into the big void Kiley left behind. In situations like this, too often you get a quick, almost apologetic intro to the guy who comes in after the departure of a star. I’m glad you took the time to set the right expectation level for us spoiled readers of your free site, and I’m super-enthused that Dan will be with Fangraphs full-time.
Most of all, it’s been bugging the crap out of me trying to remember who wrote that J.D. Martinez article!
http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/10/16/prospect-draft-cheat-sheet-infield/
I wish Dan the best of luck, I too was impressed with how he analyzed swing mechanics and used that as a basis for projecting prospects and agree he has big shoes to fill and he has some interesting and varied experience to do so.
But I am puzzled about what attracted you to his debut piece on the community forum, after having read it for the first time just now. While Dan quoted one of your articles and sought out statistical justification for your belief that perils lurk in all-out rebuilds, I find his analysis to be dubious and his use of data to be minimal. For those who haven’t read the linked article, here is it in a nutshell:
(1) Dan went to BaseballChronology.com to get revenue estimates, MLB staff and player payroll, then went to Baseballreference.com to get winning percentage from 1996 to 2006.
(2) Dan found that this correlation: The more losing teams increase payroll, the more revenue increases. With all due respect, this is as insightful as saying there is a correlation between run differential and winning percentage.
(3) Dan also found the more teams decreased payroll, the more revenue increased, though by intervals that weren’t as significant as the increases that came with payroll increases. Teams that decreased payroll most enjoyed revenue increase higher than team averages, a result he dismissed because of sample size.
(4) Dan made no effort to compare changes in payroll to changes in net profit because he could not find data on the latter and questioned how others had reported it. While that may be true, he ignores the evidence within his data, that show that looking at payroll alone, that teams that cut payroll created a much bigger spread between those cuts and their revenue compared to league average revenue than teams that increased their payrolls:
(a) Teams that cut payroll by at least 20% had revenue increases of 7% (more than the league average), a spread of as much as 27%.
(b) Teams that cut payroll by at least 30% had revenue increases of 11%, a spread of as much as 41%
(c) Teams that cut payroll by at least 40% had revenue increases of 13%, a spread of as much as 53%.
(d) Teams that increased payroll by at least 20% had revenue increases of 24%, a spread of as much as 4%.
(e) Teams that increased payroll by at least 30% had revenue increases of 30.26%, a spread of as much as 0.26%.
(f) Teams that increased payroll by at least 40% had revenue increases of 39%, a regression at best.
While it’s true payroll is but one component of costs used to calculate net profits, it is a significant one and surely better than the use of total revenue. Dan was asked about his choice in the comments section and defended it: “I wanted the results to reflect as much as possible on total revenue and thus the response of fans and paying customers, instead of also including a team’s ability to budget and make money even when they don’t make much overall (like the Royals/Marlins).”
In another comment, though, Dan wrote, “I wanted to understand it from an owner’s perspective listening to baseball ops people talking about rebuilding.”
I’m not sure how helpful it is to write from an owner’s perspective while dismissing the perspective of small-market owners who would intuitively be over-represented among losing ball clubs.
(6) Dan comes up with a method for calculating return on investment that by comparing growth in revenue to a baseline average he doesn’t report, then uses only a sliver of actual investment for his analysis, the growth in payroll, claiming that teams with losing records between .400 and 450 showed returns on investment 320% to 418%, results that should have raised a red flag about the methods but did not.
(7) The lack of data, questionable assumptions and faulty analysis might have been more tolerable as a thought piece if Dan wasn’t so definitive in his conclusions: “Looking at the data I used, it appears that the only time to reduce payroll is if you have a slew of talented players that have recently graduated into the big leagues or are just about to come up. Or if your team is historically awful, but even that is a questionable decision.”
Please understand that I have nothing but the highest praise for Dan’s analysis on swing mechanics and their application in projecting prospects, that some of the other linked work may be equally insightful and that I wish him nothing but success in a difficult task — Kiley really helped this site to become a leader in prospect analysis. And perhaps my late-night reading of Dan’s debut article left me missing its obvious brilliance. If so, I apologize. His conclusion may be on the right side of the truth, even if it was over-stated. But it seems to me the case he made was more confusing than compelling.
Your run-on sentence filled comment was a lot harder to decipher than Farnsworth’s article. That said, I agree wholeheartedly with point #2. The article was nothing more than a straw man argument, implying inexplicably that most people thought future revenues would go up as a result of current spending cuts(?). No rational businessperson thinks this way. Spending more almost always results in higher revenues. The real and only question is how it affects future profits.