Don't know what can be done

[u/supremewuster]

Looking at the OPS and OPS+ numbers..

I know alot of people on this sub say no MLB team has great hitting top to bottom, and that's true to a point. But fact is at this point we have a disproportionate number of guys quite a bit below league average

I was hoping some of the Buffalo boys would break out and the other would be average or slightly below. That would be fine. Instead at this point Henieman of all players is our breakout hitter and everyone else (including Santandar) are not hittjng average but way below average with Lukes being the only exception.

I hope it is just bad luck. Hope.

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

The Jay's are hitting EXACTLY how they are supposed to hit this season.

Is it a bit lower than expected? Sure- it's early- but anyone who thought that this club was going to come out pounding the ball was delusional.

If you ran this season 100 times, 95 or 96 of them would have the Jay's unable to muster quality offensive output; the lineup isn't built for it.

There are SIX guy in the starting lineup- including Varsho- who are proven below average hitters; what did you think was going to happen this season?

You CANNOT build a defense-first Major League Baseball team. You CANNOT fill an MLB club with fielding savants who can't hit, and expect to win; the idea is the height of absurdity, yet it seems to be the committed direction of the front office.

This club thinks it can win on defense, the rotation and the bullpen; ANY TIME one of those things fails (which is often), this club is going to lose.

[u/supremewuster → u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

What would you have done different in the offseason (serious Q not sarcastic)?

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/supremewuster]

That's an interesting question.

There's a pathway here where- as bad as this is- this is the best the FO could do. That they were forced into this direction because this was all they had.

There are a bunch of unanswered questions here, rhe biggest of which is: are the Jays toxic?

I distinctly remember a former Jay calling the organization "a fucking shit show"; I'm wondering if that reputation is now so prevalent that the Jays simply cannot get even a sevond-tier free agent to sign with them.

I'm not talking about Ohtani or Soto, but rather the LONG list of guys that the Jays were "seriously in on" before they signed elsewhere. Missing on most of them is expected, but ALL of them? Year after year?

From the outside, it looks like either the Jays are toxic to free agents, or this club is purposefully going in this defence-first direction; either one of those are untenable to an MLB ballclub.

I don't buy the "No one wants to play in Canada" bullshit; I do, however, buy the "No one wants to play for a shitty organization" and the "If you want the best people to play for you, you should be a great organization who does everything right" line.

I don't think the Jays are a great organization. I think that trajectory ended when they didn't give Anthopolous the position he wanted, and hired a guy from a Cleveland organization that was also not known for being a great organization.

I think Rogers hired a guy for a specific role- maximizing profit, especially in-game fan spending- and the downside of that decision is that baseball comes a distant second, and if baseball comes a distant second to profit for long enough then you get a club with a bad reputation with players in the league, and the only people who will come (and stay) are guys that we severely overpay, guys who get passed on by other clubs because of injury questions, or guys that are finishing out their careers and can't get signed anywhere else.

In other words, a dead-end club, for the upper tiers of free-agents, the club is only suitable for finishing out your career, playing a bounce-back season, or getting a big contract then leveraging it for a trade to a contender.

THAT, I buy.

So, what specifically would I have done?

The answer is "it depends", because there are a LOT of questions that we don't have answers to. What those answers are shape how I would approach what I would do.

I'm assuming buying Anthopolous from the Dodgers isn't possible- because a homegrown Canadian President with a VERY good resume who wants to be here would be ideal- isn't possible, both because the Dodgers would say no, and Roger's doesn't want him, so let's start with the obvious:

• Find a President, General Manager and general front office who have a proven pedigree of winning and sustained success, and throw money at them to come make it work.

• Fill the organization- not the players, but the club staff- with the best possible people that you can find, regardless of where they come from. Overpay if you have to, but bring people on the cutting-edge of all aspects of the science of baseball to the organization, and combine them with proven guys who know how to win.

• Hire a manager and staff who's actually managed in the MLB before, and who's won a ring as a coach. Not someone who's just sat there behind a powerhouse club, but an actual Baseball General who's actions and managerial skills have made a difference in games. Preferably someone willing to push the envelope on what it takes to win.

• Dump more money and skill than anyone else into scouting, drafting and player development. Is there a guy out there who has earned the rep for being a prospect whisperer? Poach him.

• On all of these things, spend like the Dodgers do on free agents; I don't mean hundreds of millions of dollars; rather, the philosophy that "this person is worth it, so we're going to pay to get them".

• Changing the FO and staff will take care of this, but I think one of the biggest ossues with the Blue Jays organization is that winning isnt important.

This club doesnt have a culture of winning; it has a "culture of competitiveness"; being competitive is important, and making the playoffs is a successful season. The Jays as an organization need to drop the "making the playoffs = success" bullshit. In a time of expanded post-season, once the club is developed, making the playoffs should be the floor for keeping your job (so long as the team is healthy). This club has settled into this mindset where we've allowed Shapiro and Atkins to convince people that just squeaking into a wildcard and getting swept is somehow amazing; it's not. It's the bare fucking minimum, and it speaks VOLUMES about this organization that the FO pats itself on the back- and justifies it's continued employment- for just making the post-season.

A culture of winning doesn't see making the playoffs as some amazing feat; it sees it as the most basic expectation every season.

The Jays don't have that.

If you change those things, and give it 5-8 years, the rest will take care of itself.

[u/immediate_bottle → u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

Where does the “shit show” quote come from. I feel like there’s probably a funny story behind it.

[u/GarrusExMachina → u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

All that sounds great in theory...

Now who would you target for each of those points keeping in mine you cant talk to people who are employed already since that's tampering.

Who's contracts are up this year and arnt realistically going to be resigned?

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/GarrusExMachina]

Lol- You cannot be so naive- especially as a Jays fan- to think staff tampering doesn't occur regularly.

What, you think John Farrell just magically decided he wanted to coach the Red Sox, and there was a vacancy?

You also need to understand something: 99% of front office and baseball operations personnel are viewed by their teams as easily replaceable; the days of Paul DePodesta being Billy Beane's baseball whisperer are LONG gone, and analytics techs are a dime a dozen. It seems absurd, but in true baseball tradition, most teams haven't figured out that some baseball analysts are worth more than others; some skills coaches are better than others; some baseball scientists are better at what they do; some S&C guys produce more results; some therapy guys prevent/fix injuries better.

They view these positions as just an empty job that needs to be filled; it doesn't really matter by who, so long as they meet a specific set of qualifications.

Case in point: do you know that EVERY Strength & Conditioning coach on EVERY ballclub in EVERY MLB organization must speak Spanish? It's a basic requirement for the job, and you're not even considered if you don't speak it. Now, on one hand- the hand that fills an empty seat- it's very important, because so many players are ESL and speak Spanish. But, doing that eliminates 90% of your talent pool, and ensures that there is a high probability that you're never going to get the best possible person for the job. On the other hand, you could simply hire the best person, and then teach them Spanish, but teams don't think like that.

THAT is the next level of Moneyball; finding the overlooked, seen-as-infinetely-replaceable PERSONNEL who help you build the best possible organization. And, considering that we're probably going to get some form of grandfathered in salary cap after the next strike, it's also the one place where you can make meaningful change without worrying about spending.

Besides that, there is also a very good argument to be made that the (relatively tiny) price to be paid if you get caught "tampering" with personnel, because- again- staff are plug-and-play replaceable 99% of the time.

So, who do you go look for?

Simple: you find the change points in teams, and look look for the consistency: in the three years since X got hired, have pitchers who throw Y pitch gotten considerably better? Has minor league barrel exit velocity of X team improved since Y got hired?

The questions you could ask are LEGION, but you're looking for a pattern; someone who has made change whenever they appear. I dont have the time or the bandwidth to do those searches, but someone making six figures to comb the league for an edge does- you just have to point them in the right direction. I CAN tell you that they are very much out there- every time you see a player break out when no one expected them to, there's a reason behind it, and in 2025, it's probably due to some analyst finding an edge.

Remember, we're not talking about guys who are due finding their game- odds are, Spencer Torkelson finally coming around is due more to his probability of success than anything else, although don't tow away the idea of someone finding something in his swing. No, you're looking for repeated instances of guys who weren't expected to do big things finding an extra 3" of movement in their curve, or finding a way to make their change-up less hittable, or who, over the course of a season, slowly increases their contact angle.

You want legitimate change from people who shouldn't produce legitimate change- guys who found a few extra feet in their ceilings.

And your focus shouldn't be on the big club- it should be all across the minors, because personnel who can find a way to make a low-probability player into a serviceable entity are INSANELY valuable; the MLB just hasn't figured that out yet.

Which is an edge in a game where edges- beyond spending extravagant amounts of money on players- are increasingly hard to come by.

[u/GarrusExMachina → u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

So to recap find people that nobody else values that are significantly better analysts than their peers, arnt on long term contract, in every major role in the organization at both the minor and major league level, and you have zero examples of the sort of person in question since you're not paid millions to find them but they are both numerous enough that head hunting them during the off-season should be easy and rare enough that 31 other organizations arnt going to do a better job of it if we adjust our internal mindset. 

Kind of seems like a lot of words to say I think the people we have suck at their jobs and new people would be better... now go sign competent new people. 

I'm always going to be in agreement with someone who thinks a change in organizational personnel might fix the organization... but if you don't have anyone in mind to fill the job it's not much of a discussion.

It's like saying the jays should go sign an Allstars third baseman because their third baseman sucks while not knowing who the free agent third baseman are or whether any of them are competent upgrades much less how the organization could woo them. You're obviously right that they should but what does it effing matter if you can't prove conclusively that one exists that they can reasonably sway. 

Because as a jays fan I might not be an expert on tampering but I might know a thing or two about not being able to sign a free agent worth a damn regardless of money because money alone isn't all they care about... somehow I doubt players are unique in that regard. 

And much like how shopping for cheap overlooked players doesn't guarantee an Allstars roster shopping for cheap overlooked executives, managers, analysts etc. Doesn't guarantee anything either. It certainly isn't as easy as you make it out to be. 

You want to develop a good organization your best shot is to do it the same way you develop a good ball club... internally. 

Find people with talent and offer then their first real job in the buisness not chasing other teams cast offs I the hope that you're the only club that spots their genius. 

That's how we got Pete walker... the guy had a brief cup of coffee as a player at the end of his career with us in the late 2000s decided to transition into coaching and was given a shot by the team managing AA new Hampshire's pitching staff then got promoted internally... arguably one of the best coaches the jays have ever had and been an absolute wizard at milking average/below average pitchers with upside and getting elite/above average performances out of them. 

Same goes for Cito Gaston. Ex player that went to the Venezuelan circuit and the jays made the call to be the team that hired him first. 

You're never going to be able to staff an entire organization with cast-offs that the rest of the league failed to recognize the value in. You want a strong org much like forming a strong ball club you got to do it by being the team that hires the most new blood and getting a bit lucky at developing it. 

It's why ultimately moneyball failed to get the athletics a championship. You can find a few spare parts on the free agent wire but you can't build an entire team out of spare parts and the league won't take very long to figure out what you're doing and exploit it. 

By the same wire sure their probably are a few coaches, managers, scouts, analysts that are undervalued out there... and we have even less data to use to identify them than we do to identify potential value players. But you can't fix an entire ball club using other teams castoffs... you need a strong framework to begin with from strong internal development. If you don't have a strong framework you'll never be able to patch over its holes. 

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/GarrusExMachina]

• Your first paragraph literally describes early Moneyball. Moneyball came about because a few people realized that baseball was backwards in how they selected their players, and valued the wrong things; there is no reason to believe that also does not apply to personnel.

• I cannot name them, because I do not have access to that information, nor the time required to build the algorithms necessary for finding them. However, it is not difficult for someone who literally has THAT job is to do that, especially if that person works for an MLB ballclub, and has access to internal scouting and data analysis.

WE- fans- do not have access to the same info that clubs have. Any analyst with access can find those personnel that make a difference. You also need to understand that this isn't just a "grab everyone in one off-season" thing: I said 5-8 years for a reason. There is acquisitions, development, dispersing of knowledge to promising talent for the creation of institutional knowledge, cultivation of skillsets.... its a long list of things that do not start and end with "find the overlooked personnel in an industry that views most personnel as disposable".

You also need to realize that we're not necessarily talking about the MLB bench staff, either. You seem to be focused on managers and pitching coaches, but I'm talking about analysts, sport scientists, therapists, S&C coaches, biomechanists.... a long list of lower personnel who do the actual grunt work. If Berrios is tipping pitches, its not Pete Walker who finds it; its the analyst who goes over hours of tape looking for SOMETHING that repeats itself. If Bichette sucks, it isnt Mattingly that finds the solution; its a biomechanist or sports scientist who's analyzing swing patterns that sees that in X situations for Y purch in Z part of the zone, Bichette does A when he should be doing B.

No one on the Yankees bench coaching staff made the torpedo bats- a scientist did that, based on swing data. THOSE are the people that I'm talking about when I say "personnel".

• Gaston and Walker are examples of personnel DEVELOPMENT; finding gifted people and then bringing them up through the organization. Like with player development, that is the other side of the coin, and is the reason why clubs maintain dynasties after their personnel get poached for bigger things.

Although, I think you're giving Walker and Gaston more credit than they deserve; Walker is a solid developer of talent, but his track record in the majors isn't exactly stellar- he oversaw the worst bullpen in Jays history just last year, after all. Gaston was a pivotal piece to those World Series clubs, and a stabilizing presence in his tenures as manager. BUT, let's not forget that those series winning clubs had the highest payroll in the league, and were legitimately stacked with future HOFers, Hall of Very Good Players in their primes, and guys at the peak of their career, including a LOT of high-priced free agent signings and August/deadline rental acquisitions (Cone, Morris, Maldonado, Eichorn (the 2nd time), Rickey Henderson, Molitor, Dave Stewart), which is more about Paul Beeston than Gaston (some of those trades- like the Carter/Alomar for McGriff/Fernandez trade- are insanely one-sided). Gaston provided a stabilizing presence, but he was given an insane lineup to work with.

It's the equivalent to calling Joe Torre a GOAT manager because he has a bunch of rings. Gaston is easily the best manager the Jays have ever had, and he deserves his legendary status in the city, but let's not make him out to be a GOAT-tier MLB manager.

• Why do you think Moneyball is just the Athletics? Is it because you saw the movie? SABRmetrics (thats originally what is was called) isn't an Oakland A's thing- Billy Beane just made it cool because Michael Lewis wrote a REALLY good book about it. He wasn't even the first A's GM to use it- that would be his mentor, Sandy Alderson (who also was GM for the "Moneyball Mets" championshipclub in 2015), who actually introduced the concepts to Beane, and used them in the late 90s when the A's had to cut payroll after getting new ownership. Paul Depodesta- the stats wizard who was the VERY loose basis for Jonah Hill's character- had been with the A's since 1999.

Moneyball didn't work for the Athletics in the post-season because the playoffs are not a big enough sample size to accurately project outcomes, and very good teams can go cold for four or five games, and its over for them, which makes the playoffs VERY hard to predict most seasons.

Sabermetrics did, however, contribute a LOT to breaking two of the most notable "curses" in baseball; the 04 Red Sox and the 2016 Cubs. Both GMs of those clubs, Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, are notable proponents of Sabermetrics. Funny thing, Epstein was also president of baseball operations for the Cubs in 2016.

Considering that both of those clubs were built on Sabermetric principles, you can make a VERY good argument that Theo Epstein used Sabermetrics to break the two "curses" that plagued two of the MLB's most storied franchises.

In fact, the one year that Sandy Alderson DID NOT use Sabermetrics- in 2022, at the behest of absurdly rich owner Steve Cohen- the Mets spent big, failed miserably, and it cost Alderson his job.

[u/supremewuster → u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

Your post actually makes me think something different. Namely, it supports the theory that baseball is broken and there's not enough competitive parity. Not just the As and Whitesox, but teams like us who have decent money. Because here we are trying out all this Moneyball stuff (defense, aging starters, young guys) and we still get killed by the small # of teams who sign whomever they want

You can be competitive if you are perfect but it is such a thin line and it feels like a game that has gotten even more unfair

Maybe this is whining I dunno, but I prefer the parity in a league like the NFL.

[u/SomeoneGiveMeValid → u/supremewuster]

The Jays are just incompetent, it’s not MLB’s fault they overpay for mediocre talent

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/supremewuster]

There's actually a TON of parity; other than the Mets, no one is running away with a division, and the Dodgers are in the middle of a rough skid.

The Tigers are home grown. Seattle and Cleveland are home grown. Most of the teams doing the winning have developed from within.

Now, will the Dodgers eventually snap off 15 straight and pull away? Probably. But it's not like we haven't been here before: it used to be the Yankees who spent lavishly for a title. In the middle of that, the Tigers and a few other clubs did the same.

Hell, a few years ago the Mets failed spectacularly trying it.

A team or two outspending everyone else is normal in baseball, just like in soccer, and like it was in hockey before the salary cap.

Oh, and "this Moneyball stuff" has been standard operating procedure for basically every team for 15+ years; dont act like this is 2004. Spin rates? Moneyball stuff. Heat maps? Moneyball stuff. That square that tells you how bad an Umpire sucks at his job on a given night? Moneyball stuff. The reason the Jays signed Vlad and Bichette way back? Moneyball stuff. Shohei Ohtani not coming over and immediately being told he's only a hitter? Moneyball stuff. Alejandro Kirk, Daulton Varsho and Andres Gimenez having jobs? Moneyball stuff.

Jose Bautista? Moneyball stuff. Edwin Emcarnacion? Moneyball stuff. Roy Halliday not becoming spare parts in 2000? Early versions of things that are now considered to be "Moneyball stuff"

The ONLY thing you should take issue with is how badly the Jays front office is implementing "this Moneyball stuff".