Olkin was only looking at whether adding Silva and Bedard would make the team likely to win more games in 2008. He was wrong about Silva and possibly right about Bedard, depending on whether the analysis was supposed to account for giving up Jones and Sherrill. But there’s nothing that would suggest he thought Silva’s contract was a good allocation of resources or the Bedard package was a wise decision over the long term.

That’s the way it seems to me as well. I can see Olkin providing an analysis that shows Silva would be an improvement. I can also see an Olkin analysis at one point that Silva is the best remaining FA pitcher, especially if durability is factored in. Or maybe he simply concludes that Silva is as good as any remaining free agent pitcher.

Bavasi and staff might then use that analysis to buttress their beliefs that Silva is the best option remaining. Based on the conclusion, Bavasi would then establish what it would take to sign Silva, and conclude that contract is the going rate for getting help for the rotation. Nothing in the article suggests that Olkin provided any assessment as to whether signing Silva would be the most effective way to spend that money.

That scenario matches the bits that are known about Olkin’s role; the Mariners ask him to look at specific players or situations and report back. There’s been no indication the team asks Olkin for bigger picture input.

Of course that illustrates a blind spot for the Mariners. Lincoln and Armstrong apparently believe that by deploying Olkin in that fashion they are deploying advanced numeric analysis.

using analyses by Mariners statistical adviser Mat Olkin to show what the moves would mean in wins and losses.

Translation: Olkin was only looking at whether adding Silva and Bedard would make the team likely to win more games in 2008. He was wrong about Silva and possibly right about Bedard, depending on whether the analysis was supposed to account for giving up Jones and Sherrill. But there’s nothing that would suggest he thought Silva’s contract was a good allocation of resources or the Bedard package was a wise decision over the long term.

Or maybe Olkin was forced to use “stats” that Bavasi could wrap his mind around, like ERA and WHIP, but was specifically told that he could leave any post-McCracken ideas behind.

The mention of “wins and losses” gives us some hints, but that’s not a particularly new concept. Unfortunately for the M’s, it’s not 1983, and you don’t get SDCN bonus points just for knowing what park factor is any more.

Armstrong insists he isn’t wedded to any one style and that a heavier use of statistical analysis will not necessarily be required. He points out that Bavasi convinced Lincoln and him to sign pitcher Carlos Silva and trade for pitcher Erik Bedard by using analyses by Mariners statistical adviser Mat Olkin to show what the moves would mean in wins and losses.

Either Bavasi misread the stats or Chuck’s lying, right? Especially in regards to Silva. Either that, or possible Chuck made a comment about statistical analysis and it was extrapolated to mean what was written?

I mean, I’d believe that were true if both moves weren’t nearly universally panned (at the time) for one reason or another.

Howie, Chuck, give me a call!

http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/mlb/help/jobs.jsp?c_id=sea

Not that they would, but that would be an interesting read… “Successful candidate must be able to evaluate talent using the team’s ‘niceness scale.’ Prior history of increasing payroll and decreasing results is a must. Statisticians need not apply.”