On the Science of General Managing

I was talking to a friend during lunch, and the topic of baseball management came up (actually, this is a fairly common topic, so I wouldn't say it just "came up"). He said that, were he a GM, he would only sign pitchers to two or three year deals. This lead to a discussion on what the best strategy, generally, for a franchise would be.

So I've been thinking about this for the past few hours, and here's what I'd do.

1) If given the option to build a new stadium, or to renovate my current one, I would prefer a pitcher-favored design. The Astrodome was the perfect example of this. This does two things: first, it allows me to hire and develop pitchers who may not be very good in a more hitter-friendly environment, but whose fly-ball pitching excels in a pitcher-friendly park. This means that I can exploit something of a market inefficiency by favoring a special kind of (otherwise poor) pitcher. Second, it kills power numbers. I neutralize my power-hitting rivals' main advantage. Of course, this also hurts me. But that brings me to point two:

2) In the draft, as well as in free agency, I would favor non-power hitters. In general, I want hitters who get on base by walking and hitting singles and doubles. I want Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Craig Biggio types. My opponents might not hit very well in my park, but my hitters will. Power hitters are great (and I'm not saying one should neglect power hitting totally), but batting average and on-base-percentage is even better. The goal here is not speed (speed's great, but only a plus) but an ability to punch the ball into the outfield and get on base. It's a sadly dying breed of hitting, and I think there would certainly be a value in selecting for those players who can do that.

3) I would construct a defense-oriented team. There was an interesting article at THT a few weeks ago, and one of its claims (backed up by statistical analysis) was that the price for a marginal Run Saved is nearly half that of a marginal Run Scored.

Now, you might point out (as I did) that this doesn't make any sense because a run scored and a run saved do the same thing. But - and here's the extra-interesting part - a run scored is worth less than a run saved (this, of course, makes intuitive sense, but it's something that I've found many people don't realize).

So I think that a primary focus of the club should be defense. I'm not saying that I'd want eight Adam Everetts out there, but good defense would be a major goal. This would help to bail out my cheaper pitching staff.

Anyways, that's my view of good baseball organizational goals. They exploit major market inefficiences and create comparative advantages for the club, and I think any team would be wise to adopt such a position.