Process Flexibility in Baseball: The Value of Positional Flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the formal study of process flexibility to the novel domain of sports analytics. In baseball, positional flexibility is the analogous concept to process flexibility from manufacturing. We study the flexibility of players (plants) on a baseball team who produce innings-played at different positions (products). We develop models and metrics to evaluate expected and worst-case performance under injury risk (capacity uncertainty) with continuous player-position capabilities. Using Major League Baseball data, we quantify the impact of flexibility on team and individual performance and explore the player chains that arise when injuries occur. We discover that top teams can attribute at least one to two wins per season to flexibility alone, generally as a result of long subchains in the infield or outfield. The least robust teams to worst-case injury, those whose performance is driven by one or two star players, are over four times as fragile as the most robust teams. We evaluate several aspects of individual flexibility, such as how much value individual players bring to their team in terms of average and worst-case performance. Finally, we demonstrate the generalizability of our framework for player evaluation by quantifying the value of potential free agent additions and uncovering the true “MVP” of a team. Data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.3004 . This paper was accepted by Vishal Gaur, operations management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".