Giants’ Analytics Debate Is Missing a Bigger Question

The San Francisco Giants received another reason to examine their operation beyond the Major League roster.

An Oct. 21 Around the Foghorn report, citing former executive Zack Scott’s compilation, placed their analytics staff at 21, below a league average of 29. The report also offered an important qualification: its comparison relied on publicly available media guides, whose job classifications could differ.

That estimate deserved attention after a 65-97 finish. It also left the president of baseball operations, Buster Posey, with a more useful question than where the Giants ranked on a staffing chart: Did the information help the people making baseball decisions?

The Public Numbers Need Context

Paul Bien supplied relevant context well before this debate resurfaced. In a February interview with The San Francisco Standard, the assistant general manager of baseball analytics described a group in the low to mid-20s that included analysts, engineers, and performance scientists.

Bien also explained that the department generally worked through coaches to communicate information to players. That detail mattered because an organization could produce useful research and still struggle to turn it into a change a pitcher or hitter could execute.

The two accounts described overlapping estimates with different levels of precision. Neither established that San Francisco reduced staffing under Posey nor identified a particular vacancy that caused losses.

A fair assessment should examine workload, expertise, and communication. Are coaches receiving answers quickly enough? Can researchers test a proposed adjustment during the year? Does the club have enough support to evaluate acquisitions while helping players already in the system?

Those questions would reveal more about necessary investment than a target head count alone.

Judge the Process by the Baseball Work

The lessons from the World Series rosters pointed toward an organization that kept improving players after acquiring them. San Francisco should examine whether its own departments shared clear responsibility for that work.

Start with the bullpen. Before adding a reliever, scouts, analysts and coaches should agree on his expected assignment, the pitches supporting it and any adjustment required. They also should identify what would invalidate their projection.

Apply the same standard to development. A promotion should come with a practical plan for the player’s next challenge, followed by a review of whether the instruction worked.

These are proposed standards, not findings from an independent audit of the club. The public reporting did not establish how consistently San Francisco met them.

The Giants’ offseason priorities require better players. Posey should also verify that the organization gives those players useful support. Add staff where a specific need exists, then measure whether that investment produces better decisions and clearer instruction.