With the 2020 season dawning a molten ball of fire this Friday in Houston, we wanted to check in behind-the-scenes. How does a 60-game schedule impact an analytics department? Where are all the Wades? What drives a baseball ops employee to keep digging for new frontiers? To find out, we asked Mariners Coordinator of Analytics John Choiniere. For reasons unclear to this blog, he agreed to answer our questions.

Nathan Bishop: The 2020 season is obviously fraught, and will go down as possibly the most anomalous season in MLB history. I’m no analyst, but as I understand it the analysis of data is typically easier and more efficient when that data is stable. How do you think a 60-game season will impact the use of 2020 data, both as a predictive tool for the season itself, and as a reference point for future seasons?

 John Choiniere: With regard to same-year-type information, there’ll clearly have to be a focus on information that “stabilizes” – a tricky word when talking baseball data, and one that’s traditionally been pretty misunderstood – more quickly, in a smaller sample set. Speaking broadly, that means focusing on process-driven information over outcome-driven info, which is fortunately something we’ve been doing a lot of already. As for putting 2020 into a wider, multi-season context, we’ll obviously see a widening of the error bars on any projections that rely on data from this year.

 NB: Disregarding things like Spring Training games and intrasquad scrimmages is a tried truism for even amateur, would-be SABR heads. With the limited schedule (and thus limited data) has there been any talk or temptation, particularly with the team at home with all the fancy cameras and everything set up, of incorporating at least a modicum of “Summer Camp” data into your analysis?

 JC: Context will always be a huge driver of what we feel we can use any specific dataset for. We have a coaching staff that in my experience is pretty uniformly interested in working the data and analysis that my coworkers and I provide into their interactions with players (which I’m very grateful for), and we’ve had plenty of discussions with them about what is or isn’t usable in the information the new Hawkeye system is gathering in these preseason weeks. This ties back into the last question, as well, about process versus results. If guys are in a full-effort, full-intent environment, there’s definitely something we can learn from the data we get, even if it’s not as much as we might learn from a regular-season environment.

 NB: As an analyst of the game of baseball, which is not well known for its pay, you obviously love the game. What is something that keeps a person with the skill set you and your department have attuned to the game? What gets you coming back for more, day after day? Winning? The idea of discovering new advancements? The game itself?

 JC: Baseball’s something I’ve loved my whole life (though of course there were times of greater and lesser interest). I’m from Minnesota, and I readily tell people that I think I grew up at exactly the right time for baseball to implant itself deep within me. I was 2 and 6 when the Twins won their two World Series; I remember being allowed to stay up late to watch in ’91, and my parents will tell you that I could tell you the ’87 roster by jersey number. I was never much of a player – I was a pitcher, and my dad used to say (lovingly, of course) that I had a great natural changeup but no fastball to go with it – but I’ve always been a diehard fan.

These days, I think what keeps me enthralled in the day-to-day of it is a combination of a desire to win, to be better than the other people doing this, and a desire to crack the puzzle that’s in front of me. Before trying to make a career out of baseball I was a chemist, and I think there’s a lot of overlap in what I find compelling about the work in both fields – you have a problem you want to solve, you study it, and hopefully you find a solution that helps people.

NB: It feels like the “Stats Vs. Scouts” war was a lifetime ago. Are there still franchises (not expecting names) in modern MLB clinging to the old school? Do coaching staffs and on-field personnel seem to hold your information close? In your time in the game have you personally seen evolution with players’ and coaches’ mindsets regarding advanced data? 

JC: I think there’ll always be a spectrum of “degree of acceptance” about the sort of analysis that my coworkers and I provide, but I don’t think there are any teams that totally eschew this sort of work. You had teams from both ends of that spectrum advance far in the playoffs last year. I’ve always felt valued and listened to with the M’s, and I think the two biggest keys to that are 1) having mutual respect between the on- and off-field staff, and 2) understanding that the team is better if we all learn from each other.

The M’s have a coaching staff that’s both very receptive to information and very willing to teach what their experience has taught them. I can’t even describe how much I’ve personally learned from Tony Arnerich, Dan Wilson, Manny Acta, and Perry Hill (I’ll stop at four, or else this Q&A might never end), or how what I’ve learned from them has helped me turn around and make better use of the data we get. And I think the team has been there throughout my time; certainly the areas that analytics touches has expanded, but everyone knows that everyone’s striving after the same goal.

 NB: Speaking of new advancements, do you feel like there are significant unmapped lands in baseball analytics? Do you worry about us “solving” baseball the way that expert chess players “solve” chess? Is there a cutting-edge idea you think will be common knowledge for 2025 baseball fans, a la “launch angle” or “exit velocity”?

 JC: I don’t have any concerns about baseball being a “solvable” game. Maybe something like Strat-o-Matic or OOTP is, but as long as we’re talking about a real-life game being played by people, there’ll always be more to learn and more to do. I do think the focus of analytics/R&D groups will shift, or rather continue to shift, from being about MLB player valuation and assessment to being more player dev- and/or performance-focused. Not how do we get the best players, but how do we get the most out of the players we have. As for cutting-edge ideas… I hate to do this to you, but I think I need to keep those to myself.

 NB: How often do you get to sit down and watch a Mariners game in real time? Are you able to “be a fan” during that experience or do you just sort of go full Neo and just see the Matrix the entire time?

 JC: I watch at least a little bit of just about every game, usually from home, though rarely the whole thing start-to-finish all at once – if it’s an evening game then the kids’ bedtime usually occupies the middle third. For the most part, particularly if I’m watching with my family, it’ll just be as a fan. Regardless of how far deep into the data I get when I’m working, there’s still something deeply appealing about watching some extraordinarily talented players just … play baseball. The only exception that comes to mind is that I tend to notice where the infield is playing for each batter, because creating those recommendations is one of the things I do.

 NB: Is there a player on the 60-man roster you feel like fans and the media are underrating compared to the excitement level within your department? Anyone/anything you feel like merits special mention? More importantly, when will you provide us with our next Wade?

 JC: I don’t have a good feel for how under-the-radar he is, but Noelvi Marte is going to fly up the industry top-100-style lists now that he’s stateside. I do a lot of our catcher defensive work, so Cal Raleigh’s a personal favorite of mine – it’s hard not to be excited about a switch-hitting, power-hitting catcher who frames well and who pitchers like to work with. And can anyone really be the next Wade?

NB: John, it has been really kind of you to join us. I’m going to ask you one question, and while I understand you may not want to answer and betray some of your behind-the-scenes information, our readers want to know: How many Velociraptors does it take to defeat Tom Murphy in melee combat?

JC: Look, I’d like to get all analytical, and talk about strengths, weaknesses, etc., but the truth of the matter is that betting against Murphy in any competition involving strength, force, or will is a fool’s errand. I don’t care how many you bring, the smart money’s on Murph.