The Manager’s Perspective: Buck Showalter on the Changing Game
Buck Showalter has been around the game for a long time. He’s been at the helm in Baltimore since 2010. Before that, he skippered the Yankees, Diamondbacks, and Rangers. After five years of managing in the minors, he got his first big-league job in 1992. It’s safe to say that Showalter has seen baseball evolve, and it’s equally safe to say that he’s evolved along with it.
At his core, though, Showalter has remained much the same. He’s smart, and to his credit — although sometimes to his detriment — he’s rarely shy about expressing an opinion. At 62 years old, with four decades in the game, he’s earned the right to do so. Buck being Buck, that’s usually a good thing.
———
Buck Showalter: “One thing about analytics is that we all question what we don’t understand. You need to learn, so during the spring we do Analytics for Dummies. That’s what we call it. We take our most veteran baseball people, our on-the-field lifers, and bring them upstairs to go over every analytic there is and find the [equivalent of a] .300 batting average in every one of them. We take the black cloud of unknown away from it.
“What we’ve found is that most of our veteran people go, ‘Oh, really? That’s all it is?’ They’re not demeaning it, they’re just saying, ‘Now I understand.’ Know where the .300 batting average of WAR is, and what it tells you. Just as important, what doesn’t it tell you that you have to be aware of.
“There’s also the environment you create. You need an environment where you’ll respect what they bring and where thy’ll respect what the field personnel can bring. The best organizations are the ones that branch those together to make evaluations.
“A problem you run into now is that the players feel almost robotically evaluated. The sixth tool is not… it’s only evaluated by the people that are with them every day. The makeup, the want-to, the crunch-time guys: everybody on the field knows who they are.
“The responsibility of leadership in today’s public world… Chase Utley is one of them, but it’s hard to find guys who are willing to be publicly viewed as That Guy. There’s the constant scrutiny. You say something to a teammate privately, trying to help him, or maybe constructively criticize, and if it gets out there publicly… it’s just different. Not that guys won’t do it, but there’s so much to being a major-league player that it’s hard to take on that responsibility, too. You used to have three or four of them on a team. That’s something that’s changed, the responsibility and burden of leadership.
“Has the ball changed? Cars are better. Medicine is better. Planes are better. I’m sure the baseballs are being made better. Why are people throwing harder? The human body gets better. We learn techniques and what does and doesn’t work.
“If they started to count runs according to how far you hit the ball — OK, 340 feet is worth one, and anything over 380 is worth one-and-a-quarter — or can you imagine if you got compensated for the distance you hit the ball? I think the contact-to-damage ratio has become… I’m on the competition committee. We talk about a lot, and I’ve really come to understand that a lot of things that we talk about — the why-don’t-we’s — well, they’ve already been talking about it for two years. There’s a process to get to that point.
“Nothing is going to change until it pays. If it pays to be a good-contact, hit-and-run, no strikeouts, play all phases of the game… if it pays, OK? If you show up in arbitration… and I’ve sat in those hearings. We’re barking up the wrong tree if we think it’s going to change before it’s compensated.
“But I’ll tell you one thing that did change. This offseason was the first time I saw front offices not do something they’ve done in the past. There was no collusion, no whatever. It was all about looking analytically at a player and saying, ‘He’s not worth X.’ And they stuck to it. Front offices are smarter with their contracts than they had been. Some of these that are held over… I guarantee you, if you sign a guy to a seven-year contract, you’re going to be lucky if you’re happy for four of those seven.
“So the game has changed, but it also hasn’t. You still have to do the same things to do well. It’s like when people were talking about Mickey Callaway and Gabe Kapler early on. I said, ‘Guys, everybody stop and give these guys a chance.’ I remember when I was 35, 36 years old, or whatever it was when I was with the Yankees. People were questioning everything. If you’ve got good players it kind of helps.
“To shut down one thing and say, ‘Hey, I’m doing veteran managers only’ or ‘I’m doing first-year managers only’… every situation calls for a different approach or a different voice. But there are certain absolutes. I enjoy the analytics. I really do, but you have to be careful, because you can slant them to back up anything you want them to back up. And there’s always point-counterpoint to every one of them.
“There’s a cause and effect to it, too. We’re doing a thing this year with charting. If we played straight up the whole year, how many hits did we keep from happening? On the flip side, if we were in shifts, how many balls did we get outs on that would have been hits? I decided, ‘Let’s evaluate what we’re getting out of this.’
“There’s some strong talk about eliminating shifts, too, trying to make the value of a ground ball more… trying to dictate more action on the field, as opposed to strikeouts and home runs. Defense is still important. I actually think it’s magnified more in the big leagues now than it’s ever been. The good teams playing late into the season are good defensive clubs, with no exceptions. When the ball is put in play, you better catch that sonuvabitch. If the ball is put on the ground with a man on first, you better turn two. Outs are big. Everybody’s got power.
“The players up here are good. I think we have the biggest chasm ever between the minor leagues and the big leagues. It’s a huge chasm, and the ability to evaluate… and sometimes guys can be hitting .250 down there and do better up here. Same with pitchers. The ability to evaluate what plays up here is important in an organization.
“Let’s face it. Guys come out of college football and they go right to the NFL and are all-pro. They come out of high school and play in the NBA. They come out of Stanford and are on the Ryder Cup in golf. Baseball? Doesn’t happen. There’s such an apprenticeship here. Guys are coming to the big leagues so fast that the importance of being able to teach at the major-league level is higher than it’s ever been. You can’t assume anything anymore. Nothing.”
David Laurila grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and now writes about baseball from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He authored the Prospectus Q&A series at Baseball Prospectus from December 2006-May 2011 before being claimed off waivers by FanGraphs. He can be followed on Twitter @DavidLaurilaQA.
My opinion of Buck Showalter has increased about 100 fold by reading this interview. As a Jays fan that’s seen him be the enemy as part of the Yankees and Orioles for so long, and after the whole Britton thing against us in the WC game, it’s hard to like him or think highly of him. But he does really seem to get it. They might as well make him the GM in addition to the manager because for a guy that values defense so much, he’s got by far the worst group of defenders in baseball.
“….if you give a guy a seven year contract….”
Chris Davis
He’s not talking about him. There is no way the Orioles will become disappointed with Chris Davis’ contract after four years.
Agreed. This was shockingly open-minded and reasonable (relative to what I thought Buck was going to say – which I have to admit was something like “Gregg Zaun without the sexual harassment” level nonsense.)
Buck Showalter is an incredibly smart guy, and he understands analytics very well. I think the idea that he’s some sort of baseball relic has to do with two things: (1) He has a reputation for burning out his players with his intensity, although I think he’s done pretty well with the Orioles; and (2) His rant against projection systems, which is really just him doing his us-against-the-world schtick.
Really? Was there anything remotely unusually insightful here? I agree with a lot of what he said, but nearly everyone that works in baseball that has a brain would say the same things. “We teach our old guys about new stats”, “Arbitration rewards the wrong things”, “There was no collusion this offseason”. Nice thoughts, but these are the baseball equivalents of “climate change exists” and “vaccines don’t cause autism”.
I can’t hold him responsible for the inexcusable things the front office does (even though it’s hard to believe he has no influence), but in order to make up for the Britton debacle, he’ll have to do a lot more – a full-day lecture on every stat that exists on this site, maybe?
You know that a ton of people still don’t believe “climate change exists” and “vaccines don’t cause autism”, right?
Of course. But the majority of front offices are now filled with intelligent, analytically-minded people – at least to the extent that Buck’s comments would be expected from just about any manager or front-office person.
In other words, the people who still don’t believe in climate change or think that vaccines cause autism are analogous to the old school “he’s ok but only had 80 RBIs last year so he can’t be that good” types that still exist but are in an extreme minority in the game (at least in positions of power).
OTOH, useless counting stats can be meaningful for marketing purposes! (looking at Pujols and the RBI record)
Hey, RBI are still cool. Evan Gattis had 5 RBI in back-to-back games, and like a zillion that week. That’s really cool! (no sarcasm intended).
What’s not cool is using RBI as a proxy for how good a player is, and as a predictor of future performance (but we all know that, of course).
The day of Buck Showalter’s dismissal was my worst day as a Yankees fan (though it seems to have worked out pretty okay for the Yankees since…). It was clear during his Yankees managerial tenure that Buck didn’t accept so many of the tropes common in baseball. In that regard, he was well ahead of his peers. When he made a decision, I was confident there was sound reasoning behind it. I recall his actually writing the intro to one of the SABR books in the mid-90s.
I agree! Well, not my worst day, but I remember him getting firing, the “Clueless Joe” headlines when Torre was hired, and not being happy at all about it.
Funny how that all worked out.
It ended up teaching me two things – 1, don’t jump to conclusions about a baseball move, and 2, the most important things a manager does are done behind closed doors.
Downvoters….why?
No offense at all intended, but I’m really curious why you’re so impressed with his statements. Are you really surprised that nearly anyone in baseball would make comments like these? Yes, he does seem to “get it”. But did you previously think he didn’t? Do you think that there are a lot of other people in baseball that “don’t get it” to the extent that these comments impress you?
I’m genuinely interested about what you (or any of your upvoters) are so impressed by, and why.
Personally, I would be surprised if more than 1% of mangers and top front-office people in baseball *didn’t* make comments like these.
“When the ball is put in play, you better catch that sonuvabitch.”
Thanks Buck!
Picking out was obviously a joke, and pretending it was a major point of Showalter’s comments.
Thanks internet!
I pointed out the part that made me laugh.
Thanks passive/aggressive guy!
‘the 6th tool’. ‘the guys who are with them every day’. so true. fascinating.
Oh…..I just thought the 6th tool was Ubaldo Jimenez because he couldn’t even make the “all tool” rotation 😉
The thing I found most amazing is that Showalter is 62 years old. Damn Buck, looking good.
Considering I’m 34 and I don’t remember a time when he wasn’t managing a major league team, I’m surprised he’s only 62!!
On the other hand, when Sparky Anderson led the Tigers to the 1984 title he was FIFTY years old!
Per Google, Showalter is a surname common in the United States, and is possibly an anglicized variant of the German Schulter (“shoulder”). A more likely source is from the German words schön wald, (“pretty forest”), referring to one who lived in such a place: a Schönwalder.
This is fantastic. All the Manager’s Perspective pieces are great, but this one is my favorite so far.
“I enjoy the analytics. I really do, but you have to be careful, because you can slant them to back up anything you want them to back up.”
Forgetting that “everything before the ‘but’ is BS” it’s really aggravating when people try to write off all science/analytics/statistics/etc by saying you can make them say anything you want. You can’t.
I guess interviewees wouldn’t be as open to it but it’d be great to listen to these. You can easily lose the meaning when you’re reading vs listening to how things are said.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The metrics themselves aren’t at fault – they are merely tools, and tools can be wielded correctly or incorrectly. I don’t think he is writing off science/analytics/statistics, but he is wary of human nature, and how people can misuse these tools.
This is the correct answer. Pick the right set of numbers and you can make Lance Lynn look like Yu Darvish.
“Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything Kent, forfty per cent of all people know that” – Homer Simpson
He’s not entirely wrong, though. I mean sure, if you interpret it literally, you cannot make statistics say ANYTHING you want. There are limits, and statistics only tell the truth. But that truth is open to significant interpretation. For example, teams score fewer runs in the 9th inning than any other inning. That fact can be handled in all kinds of ways. A team could, theoretically, say that since they allow fewer runs in the 9th inning anyway, might as well use their best reliever in the 8th every game, and just punt the 9th with someone else. As another example, teams are far more likely to win games in which they hit a home run (I forget the actual rate). A team could, in turn, choose to be the Mets.
I think Buck is only referring to the concern of organizations drawing flawed conclusions and drafting flawed strategies based on certain pieces of data. Sometimes, there’s more to the story, and exploiting something isn’t always the successful idea it appears to be.
One famous example would be a study conducted on returning bombers in WW2 to see which locations took the most fire. Rather than strengthen those locations, it was the locations that took the least damage that were strengthened.
Right, because of the survivor bias built into the study.
Another example from WW2, is some general did a study about how many combat troops actually fired their weapon and came up with something like 30%. However the troops classified as “Combat” included cooks, supply, and non-infantry positions into that number. Where as the truth is that almost all combat infantryman fired their weapon during the war.
“Another example from WW2, is some general did a study about how many combat troops actually fired their weapon and came up with something like 30%. However the troops classified as “Combat” included cooks, supply, and non-infantry positions into that number. Where as the truth is that almost all combat infantryman fired their weapon during the war.”
That statement is very much in dispute. But regardless of whether Slam Marshall (the officer who made the WW2 study you are referring to) was correct or not, the US military took his idea to heart and by Vietnam every infantry unit leader was well aware of the study and was taught to try and make sure that everyone was during. Despite this, many storied combat organizations still reported rates of troop combat fire of around 80%.
Theory and training and preparation are one thing, but what men actually do when under fire is another, and is according to their individual nature. Some rise to heroic levels (look up Freddy Gonzalez at Hu? some time); some stay under cover and hang back.
Failure to fire is not just a modern phenomenon, either; look up the mass cowardice of Union troops at Shiloh. Sherman reported that tens of thousands not only refused to fire but deserted, ran, and hid under the bluffs at Pittsburgh Landing.
This is interesting; the 6th tool/failure to fire.
I can’t help seeing a correlation to the ‘Yankees development machine’ article and this…..Baseball is hard
It just seems so pointless to say about analytics and nothing else.
“Words are great because they’re how we communicate, but you gotta be careful because people can lie and say anything they want.”
“Food is great because it nourishes you, but you have to be careful because someone might serve you a fried boot.”
Naive people exist and they can be misled about literally anything. I just don’t see why we always have to single out statistics.
Great read.
One thing I really don’t get is banning the shift. Fielders should be positioned wherever teams feel like they’ll convert balls in play into outs at the highest rate. And there’s been some degree of shifting or positioning for a long time.
I’m torn on this. I agree 100% in theory – let them play with a pitcher, a catcher, and 7 left-fielders if they want to.
But then in practice, if it truly ends up being bad for baseball (say, because everything’s either a home run or a strikeout as a result of players not trying to bunt/go the opposite way but instead swinging for the fences every time), then at some point you probably have to police it.
Couldn’t disagree more with this. Baseball has always been a cat and mouse game between hitting and pitching/defense, and shifts are a reaction against exactly the types of hitters that traditionalists seem to have a problem with.
If folks want contact hitting to return, then the shift is your friend. It punishes the most extreme pull/TTO hitters. As for Ks and HRs, you can’t blame the shift for that, since they’re not balls in play. Talk to the commissioner’s office about the new baseballs.
It’s about the money in EVERY sport. So, if NBA players are getting paid to SHOOT 3s, EVERYONE will shoot them.
If Baseball starts valuing high average, financially, everyone will aim to be a .300 hitter, cut down on k’s and homers will become something to marvel at once again. The MLB pays for home runs, so everyone will try to do so, in order to follow the money.
Baseball is in real trouble as fans have lost interest in a one dimensional game. The announcing teams have become less about on the field and started hiring people based on quotas. The stats have overloaded fans and made the simple too complex. We pretty much know who is great based on what we see in there numbers.
The Yankees still win bc of money. Same with all the big markets. No amount of analytics will change what we all know. Do we need analytics to tell us JD MArtinez is good? End of the day all that matters are the 5 tools that show up statistically.
The shift elimination while I would hate it, might have to be considered for the betterment of the game. You have to do something otherwise, baseball will lose like the NBA has been doing.
“The announcing teams have become less about on the field and started hiring people based on quotas.”
Thst’s a very real problem everywhere. Quotas are the direct enemy of quality. The institutionalized discrimination of quota hiring opposes any possible commitment to excellence by hiring people based on their personal demographics instead of what should be the only hiring criteria: how well they can do the job.
And that has negatively impacted baseball announcing in a big way; I’ve been watching it decline for decades.
“If folks want contact hitting to return, then the shift is your friend.”
I don’t believe this has been the case. I’ll see if I can find the recent article I read (or look up the stats for myself). But the gist was that instead of hitting for contact and attempting to go the other way (as was expected), when faced with a shift, hitters have tried to hit for *more* power.
“As for Ks and HRs, you can’t blame the shift for that, since they’re not balls in play.”
I may be wrong, but I claim that you *can* blame the shift for that. From what I’ve read, it’s more often the case hitters are trying to defeat the shift by hitting for more power. Both strikeout and HR are thus increased.
my opinion is that Buck Showalter is top shelf all the way
I have always respected Buck,and what he has accomplished. He built the Yankees,somebody else got all the credit for the championships won. Smart man,fascinating to listen to.
It’s about the money in EVERY sport. So, if NBA players are getting paid to SHOOT 3s, EVERYONE will shoot them.
If Baseball starts valuing high average, financially, everyone will aim to be a .300 hitter, cut down on k’s and homers will become something to marvel at once again. The MLB pays for home runs, so everyone will try to do so, in order to follow the money.
Baseball is in real trouble as fans have lost interest in a one dimensional game. The announcing teams have become less about on the field and started hiring people based on quotas. The stats have overloaded fans and made the simple too complex. We pretty much know who is great based on what we see in there numbers.
The shift elimination while I would hate it, might have to be considered for the betterment of the game. You have to do something otherwise, baseball will lose like the NBA has been doing.
“fans have lost interest in a one dimensional game”
Speak for yourself.