I know a little bit about cattle ranching (a very little bit).  I know a little more about cattle ranchers. 

Cattle ranchers are among the most self-conscious individuals on the planet.  You wouldn’t think so.  After all, our perception of ranchers is that they are rugged individualists, beating their own path through life.  The truth is, most ranchers are so afraid of doing things differently than their neighbors that they will run their cattle operation into the ground before they will consider changing the way they do things.

The reason for this is that cattle ranchers watch each other.  So if you do anything different than your fellow ranchers, everyone is going to know about it.  And if what you do differently leads to failure (however failure is defined), then you’ll be the laughing stock of the cattle ranching community.

I’m picking on cattle ranchers a little bit because I’ve seen first hand how opposed many of them are to change.  They do things the way they do because it’s the way everyone else is doing it.  It’s also probably the same way their fathers did it, and their father’s fathers, and so on.

Baseball GMs are similar in this regard to cattle ranchers.  Pretty much everyone is using the same formula for success.  The problem is that every organization is different.  Each organization has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Some organizations are good at scouting.  Other have the finances to outspend their competition.  But in the end, every team looks for the same qualities in players and they try to build their organization in exactly the same way.

I have to admit, I never really thought about this until I immersed myself in the writings of Joe Posnanski.  Pos (that’s my little nickname for him) is a tremendous writer and a really smart guy.  He’s funny, self-deprecating, and he has a knack for looking at baseball from perspectives most of us never consider or even imagine.

Here’s a good example of how Pos approaches a given baseball problem:

[T]he Kansas City Royals (or a number of other teams) cannot hope to compete consistently by using the same strategies as other teams. I think we all know that the Pittsburgh Pirates have not had a winning record since 1993, which I believe is a big league record. But what I didn’t know is that the Pirates are just one of several teams in the midst of a long, long, long losing period.

Pittsburgh: Seventeen consecutive losing seasons.

Baltimore: Twelve consecutive losing seasons. (Thanks to BR DJ for reminding me … I forgot to include the Orioles in the original which is funny because Baltimore was the team that really got me thinking that there are several teams that have not won for a LONG time).

Kansas City: On pace for fifth 100-loss season in eight years — losing seasons 14 of last 15 years.

Cincinnati: Nine consecutive losing seasons, and people in Cincinnati tell me this is the worst one yet.

Milwaukee: Made the playoffs last year which was a nice story. And were 83-79 the year before that. But they had 14-consecutive seasons before that where they were .500 or worse (they were .500 once) and they have a losing record at the moment.

Washington Nationals: On pace for back-to-back 100 loss seasons, and 11 seasons leading up to where they did not win more than 83 in a season.

This is just the start.  To compete with the likes of the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, LA Dodgers, etc., small-market and/or low-revenue teams must apply different strategies and thought processes than the teams they are competing with.

This way of thinking was triggered by a conversation (or conversations) Pos had with Bill James, King of sabermetrics and consultant with the Boston Red Sox.  Pos describes James’ opinion on the matter like this:

The feeling Bill has is that organizations can be bullied into a second class state because they want to be viewed as “professional.” They can’t win playing the game the same way as teams with more resources — repeat: They CANNOT win that way and they ARE NOT winning that way — but they cannot help but succumb to the pressures of professionalism. They don’t want to look unprofessional. That scares them more than the losing.

Sounds like the cattle ranchers, doesn’t it?

Stealing a little bit from Pos and one of his readers, Stuart, there are basically two ways organizations can approach a given situation.  Option 1 is to do what is expected of you; what is the professional thing to do; what everyone else is doing.  Win or lose, at least you won’t get laughed at.

Option 2 is to do something unconventional, knowing that even if you win, you’ll be criticized for doing things differently.  Worse yet, if you don’t succeed, you’ll be the laughing stock of your peers for stepping outside the box and doing things differently.

Pos splits out the second option in the following non-baseball example;

You’re a high school loser (or, wait, no, that was me). You could (A) not ask anyone to the prom and more or less go unnoticed, (B) ask out the most beautiful girl in school (the one you’ve had the crush on since the 5th grade) and maybe have her say yes and make you suddenly the coolest guy around or (C) ask the most beautiful girl in school and become the school punch line.

Option A in Pos’ example corresponds to our Option 1.  Option B and C are the two sides of Option 2.

Putting this into baseball terms, the given is that GMs of small market/low-revenue teams CAN NOT compete using the same strategies as larger, more financially capable teams.  Even so, most GMs insist on doing the same things as their bigger, more well-heeled bretheren.  Why?

Almost certainly, the reason goes back to Bill James assertion that these GM are trying to be “too professional.”  Surely, if they knew it would work, they would try something different (Option 2).  But because they are not assured of success, they choose to guarantee their failure while looking professional rather than taking a chance at succeeding, but looking unprofessional.

This is the premise I will be using as I move forward with this “Thinking Out Of The Box” series.  Posnanski has some more great stuff to offer, which I’ll cover tomorrow.