I don't see how the Phillies organization can succeed with this continued level of churn in philosophy and baseball-side people. A lack of continuity must be extremely confusing and frustrating to players, every bit as bad as when we drafted guys with great level swings which stayed in the hitting zone for a long distance and then quickly changed our mind and decided we wanted guys with loft who would hit lots of HRs -- while HRs across the organization seemed to decline. It was the former approach which gave us Hoskins and Cozens battling for the Eastern League HR title a few years back.
I agree that our analytics department seems to lack sophistication and a sense of how their stats actually apply in game situations and player development, as seen last year with our bad OF positioning and ineffective shifts and severe dings defensively with poor defensive players (and some good ones) being asked to play out of position. It is our old square peg/round hole problem. Analytics has to be geared to making the most of the players you actually have in MLB and upper minors, rather than deciding how the game is best played so your players will just have to try to play that way. Yes, it can be used to identify players who fit our new preferred style in trade and FA acquisitions, while identifying those players to trade while they don't fit and identifying college players who are both good and fit our new mold. However, having a new mold (or any successful mold at all) only works if you have stability and cut down on the philosophical and personnel churn and have the scouts working on the same page as the rest of the organization.
I see fairly wild swings in the amateur prospects we have chosen to give big $ bonuses to in the draft and internationally over the past decade and even half decade. The best organizations find what works and stick with it, with tweaks to adjust to changes in the game (rules, the ball itself, the strategies of other teams).
It is also concerning that the Phillies are consistently a follower organization, aping the ideas of other orgs, once they become faddy or their initial adopter shows signs of success. The organizations with the best baseball minds are leaders in successful new approaches. I think they also have more stability at the heart of their organization. They also are willing to use all of their resources to the fullest, including $. It's nice if knowledgeable advisors can argue and explain the merits and shortcomings of alternate strategies, but the core decision majors need to have a consistent philosophy You can't have a big-market mentality in the owner and a small-market philosophy in the decision makers below him.
I know that many see the Mallee firing as cathartic, but it also is a sign of organizational confusion.