Fascinating interview!
Talking lineup switcheroos, analytics, pitch counts and more with Cubs GM Jed Hoyer
By Jon Greenberg 7h ago 6
There can’t be a sports executive in this city who does more radio interviews than Cubs general manager Jed Hoyer, who is both relatable and accessible, which is a nice combination for his line of work.
I swear Hoyer is the lead-in to — not the winner of, obviously — Grobber’s “Bum of the Week” at 1 a.m on The Score before appearing rapid-fire on Mully & Hanley, Big John and Ramblin’ Ray, Kap & Co., The Roe Conn Show, the Ben Joravsky Show… Sometimes Cubs president Theo Epstein feels bad and does an interview himself, but both Cubs executives deserve credit for always being there to talk to the fans and answer their often repetitive questions. Not every fanbase gets the chance to hear it straight from the bosses’ mouths.
With that in mind, I’ve noticed over the years that Hoyer is always seemingly answering the same questions. While Hoyer, who is always available to the ink-stained wretches as well, takes it in stride — his buddy Theo has no problem pointing out bad points — I thought it would be useful to bring up some commonly asked questions and get more definitive answers to them from Hoyer. Think of it as sort of a “Mythbusters” interview.
So on Monday, before the rain started coming down onto Wrigley Field, wiping away the game, Hoyer indulged me for about 20 minutes near the home dugout.
Is it a myth that Joe Maddon messes with the lineups too much?
Greenberg: Lineups is one…
Hoyer: You know that’s my biggest pet peeve.
Greenberg: Is it really?
Hoyer: Yeah, because…
Greenberg: Wow, I didn’t even have to say anything.
Hoyer: I’ve said this a few times in the media. One of the first things I learned from Bill James when I was working with him in Boston, he would always say, you know, don’t obsess about the lineup. It’s the biggest waste of your time. All you want to do is hit your best hitters the most often. If you do that, don’t worry about it. Any other changes, we’re talking about fractions of runs over the course of a season. So for an individual game, it’s just not going to have enough of an impact. Fractions of runs and people obsess. It’s a sports radio lightning rod, both a consistent lineup and the batting order. I just think people spend too much time thinking about something that doesn’t have a significant impact on winning and losing.
When it comes to a player like Kris Bryant, digging into certain stats might not do you any good. (Patrick Gorski/USA TODAY Sports)
On Kris Bryant and our focus on hitters’ numbers with runners in scoring position and clutch situations
Greenberg: The big thing we’re talking about now is Kris Bryant’s numbers in close and late situations…
Hoyer: Also something I think is cyclical. If you look back at his rookie year, he got every clutch hit, drove in every clutch run. He had huge hits in every single (2016 playoff) series against the Giants, against the Dodgers, against the Indians. So the idea that it’s somehow not in his DNA has been proven wrong as a Cub. I think those things are cyclical. Guys will have a stretch where they’re great in a situation but maybe be down for awhile.
[Editor’s note: In 2015, according to Baseball-Reference, Bryant slashed .292/.417/.489 with a .395 BABIP and 63 RBIs in 175 plate appearances with runners in scoring position. With two outs, just 74 plate appearances, he slashed .350/.473/.567 with just 14 strikeouts and 13 walks. That season, in 100 “late and close” plate appearances, he hit .250/.380/.463 with 28 strikeouts, five doubles, four homers and 12 RBIs. He slashed .317/.408/.520 in high leverage situations and just .236/.340/.417 in low ones. Check here for his current splits, which are dramatically different.]
Greenberg: Are close and late numbers a good stat to look at to see if someone’s a good player?
Hoyer: That’s not something I would spend a lot of time on. Again, I think for the most part guys are cyclical with that. If you’re a good hitter, you’re a good hitter. I think that especially with a guy that has proven to have the ability to get big hits in big spots.
Is it a myth that pitch counts are destroying baseball as we know it?
Hoyer: The whole argument about pitch counts and teams babying pitchers in today’s game is one that never sits well with me. I always feel like it needs proper context. I think back in, let’s use the ’50s for example, you had major league teams signing a ton of guys for their 15-20 minor league affiliates. The investment in the players was far less. So they would have guys throw all the time and throw a lot of pitches. A handful of guys would survive and a lot of guys you’ve never heard of with great arms fell by the wayside. So when people use Robin Roberts or Catfish Hunter or Nolan Ryan as examples, they are citing the outliers. If we wanted to throw guys 300 innings today on a four-man rotation, we could do it. We don’t know who it would be, but someone would survive that gauntlet. But with four full-season affiliates and huge signing bonuses and guaranteed contracts, no one is able to take that risk with their pitchers. Nor should they.
Also, the game was played completely differently. When you go back and look, I’ll use an example, Bob Gibson. Everyone talks about how dominating his stuff was…and I’m sure it was. Well, he was striking out probably seven or eight guys per nine. Right?
(Editor’s note: In his magical 1968 season, Gibson struck out 7.9 hitters per nine innings. That would have been the 36th best strikeout per nine ratio last season between Rick Porcello and John Lackey.)
The game was simply different. When you were pitching a complete game, you might be throwing 100 pitches, 105 pitches. Guys swung at the first pitch, guys hit the ball on the ground, they sacrifice bunted a lot. There was no weightlifting. Slugging percentages were different. No one wanted to strike out. The idea of going deep in a game or pitching nine innings, you didn’t have guys up there trying to get full counts or trying to hit the ball out of the ballpark all the time. So I think when people talk about complete games or whatever, at some point, the number of pitches that starters are throwing often times isn’t that different.
Joe Maddon likes to talk, but not necessarily about his relievers’ health — fans rarely have all the information when it comes to bullpen availability. (Patrick Gorski/USA TODAY Sports)
On the mysteries of bullpen management
Greenberg: When it comes to bullpen management, how big is the gap between what the public knows about a team’s bullpen usage and what you guys know?
Hoyer: I think that’s one area that is probably frustrating for a fan, because what the fans aren’t aware of is who’s available that day, who’s not available, who’s semi-available but we’re trying to stay away from. I think it’s a hard one, so a lot of times when people are frustrated with the bullpen usage in a certain night it might be because two guys are sore. Joe [Maddon]’s not going to say that after the game. “By the way, that guy’s sore.” So I think that’s one area where a lot of times the decision on the field, there’s a reason, and if the reason could be given to the public, it would make a lot more sense. You’re not going to talk about every soreness, every injury, every time you want to rest a guy, both for obvious reasons in your own clubhouse and also for the opponent as well, right? But I do think that’s one area where I understand the frustration, but it’s also they don’t have all the information nor are they going to have it, so it’s a natural area of frustration.
Greenberg: How much research do you guys do, as far as knowing which relievers to pitch in certain circumstances?
Hoyer: A lot. A lot. Every bullpen has a bunch of guys who do different things. You want guys who can elevate, you want guys who can sink the ball. You want curveballs, you want sliders. When you have that, you might be like, “This part of the lineup really struggles with elevated fastballs, so we’re going to throw this guy.” There’s a lot of that goes into how you match up.
Why, oh why, do we talk about trades in May?
Greenberg: I thought of this story idea in late May when people would ask you about the possibility of trades. When do trades first get talked about?
Hoyer: GMs are always in contact with each other. I do think things have moved up a little bit. You’ve already seen a few trades this year, which is unusual. Really, April and May are, generally speaking, dead zones for trades. People are still figuring out what they have, what they don’t have. A lot of times if people are willing to trade at that time, the prices are so high because there’s such a big percentage of the year left. So I do think that time of the year when people start talking about it, it’s too early.
Greenberg: For us it’s like, after a month fans and reporters think they know what a team has, so it’s time to talk trades. But when do you start doing the work to prepare for possible deals?
Hoyer: We have a department of people who are always doing the work on that, but as far as when the focus shifts to it? I think you’re always talking about it, but I think it becomes more serious after the draft.
Greenberg: So when do you guys talk about possible trades and that kind of stuff in the front office suite?
Hoyer: I think you always are, but not necessarily specifics on whom to go get, but what shortcomings you might have or might be able to address. So I think conversation is always going on. You might have a list of a dozen players that can fill that role and then you winnow it down. But it’s not like there’s a fine point on it for awhile.
Greenberg: I think fantasy baseball has probably brought more focus on early trade talks.
Hoyer: I was listening to somebody talk about the NBA draft today and they said the most exciting part is the trades. There’s a fascination with the NFL draft, the NBA draft, baseball in general. People love that. Which I get.
The Cubs front office never had to raise the white flag on the 2017 season thanks to a post-All-Star break spark, but the Cubs were prepared for all eventualities. (Scott Kane/USA TODAY Sports)
On when fans should raise the white flag…
Greenberg: When’s a good time, generally, for fans to really worry about a disappointing team?
Hoyer: I don’t have a good answer. But I will say I think we’re all guilty. We’re playing the Dodgers right now, it’s a good example, I think they were eight or nine under at one point. Was it 10? [Editor’s note: The Dodgers were 16-26 on May 16.] People were already writing their obituary as a team in May and you realize that a really good team can overcome that. I think people tend to forget how hot a good team can get and erase that deficit. On the flip side, I think the opposite happens all the time. If a team gets off to a 30-18 start that wasn’t expected to be good, people are like, “Well, we’re definitely [going to] the playoffs.” No, you can lose a lot of games in a hurry if you weren’t expected to be there in the first place. [Editor’s note: See the 2016 White Sox.] On both sides, good and bad, I think people jump to conclusions early without realizing there’s a reason we do this thing for six months.
Greenberg: Do you have any personal examples of a team you were sure was going to be bad that turned out to be good?
Hoyer: I think last year, I feel like in July we were definitely confident given what happened the year before, and we knew how hot we could get in the second half. I think Theo’s talked about this openly, we certainly had discussions about if things don’t turn around, here are the possible moves we would make. We didn’t react too early, but certainly those conversations were going on.
Greenberg: I wondered if that was really true.
Hoyer: It was more of, “If this doesn’t turn around in the next two or three weeks.” It was frustrating. That first half, I think we were 43-45 at the All-Star break. That was not something we ever thought was going to happen coming off the World Series. You talk about a hangover and you’re two under at the All-Star break. I think that’s a really good example of what you’re talking about. That team won 92 games. We got really hot and I think a hot streak can erase several months of playing poorly. Another example is Boston in 2004, there was a lot of frustration. We were 10 over, I think, in April and then we were a .500 team for three months. That was amazingly frustrating given the talent level that we had and given that the Yankees were running away with it and we ended up winning 98 games. We had a great August and really took off.
It was a really good learning experience, because I do think that [Nomar Garciaparra] trade sparked the team, but at the same time we also had such an unbelievable talent level. That hot streak was going to happen at some point, no question.
On the “good numbers” that fans should use when talking about hitters and pitchers
Greenberg: I know you have proprietary stats, but what publicly available stuff would you tell people to use, besides the eye test, to evaluate a player’s performance?
Hoyer: I think everyone has stuff for different things. One thing I would mention I do look at a lot and this is really simple, I look at walk-to-strikeout ratio a lot. Both as a team and as a player. I just think teams that control the strike zone and hitters and pitchers that can control a strike zone are amazingly valuable. I think that’s one of the things. I’m really happy with our on-base percentage as a team. I love the fact we have great walks, our strikeouts are down. At the same time, as a pitching staff, our walks are up and that’s been a source of frustration. I do look at that a lot either way. There are hitters, that we know, who succeed without controlling a strike zone, but as a rule you want some guys that have some control over the strike zone, have some walks, control their strikeouts. Same as with the pitching side.
You get some bad questions in radio. Which ones would you do away with?
Greenberg: What questions that you get a lot during those radio interviews do you dislike?
Hoyer: There is such a focus on the one or two guys who are slumping. You have 25 guys. You always have one or two guys who are in a slump. In most cases, the question about “What are we doing to help them?” is really difficult to answer. Sometimes, it is simply a case of baseball being a game of failure and slumps are a part of it. In other cases, the player may be working on something mechanical and that isn’t normally something you can speak to in great detail out of respect for the player and coach. So while the answer might be really interesting, it isn’t one that you can provide during the slump. It’s a legitimate question, just one that doesn’t usually lead to an interesting answer because of those factors.
Some bonus front office myth-busting…
Greenberg: What’s the biggest Theo myth you can bust?
Hoyer: The biggest Theo myth is Theo is obviously incredibly aware of the numbers. He is obviously exceptionally bright and quantitive, but I think one of his great gifts is he’s able to take in all the information. He loves scouting, he loves player development and he relates to everyone from coaches to scouts to players at the same exact level. The biggest myth about him that he’s the pioneer of the quantitative age, but that’s really where it stops. The truth is what makes him exceptional is he has a great understanding of the quantitative, but he adds the human element to it.
Greenberg: What’s the biggest Jed myth?
Hoyer: That I’m tall.
Greenberg: That’s not a myth.