PDA

View Full Version : This could be interesting...


Lip Man 1
04-25-2013, 11:13 AM
Hawk will be on the MLB Network, Brian Kenney sabermetics show this afternoon starting at 3PM Chicago time.

Lip

jdm2662
04-25-2013, 11:18 AM
I read this yesterday on NBC Sports. Does Hawk really want to embarrass himself more than he already does? I hate statistical analysis as much as the next guy (I needed two tries to pass that damn class in grad school), but they aren't completely useless. Hawk lives in this world where is right, and if you don't agree with him, he gets pissy.

pythons007
04-25-2013, 11:21 AM
They have clips of him bashing sabermetrics on the Bors and Bernstein show.

Lip Man 1
04-25-2013, 11:33 AM
Not defending or disagreeing with Hawk's position per se but one of his points that I think has been overlooked in the furor over his comments has been the human element.

One of Hawk's positions is that good baseball people are being let go because some organizations feel a computer can do a better job of talent evaluation than a human being.

And there is some truth to that, Washington let a number of people go for example, including former Sox pitcher Bart Johnson as they invested more heavily on the numbers approach to things.

Read the story on the Mariners this week in S.I. and the supposed boatload of youg talent they have and was impressed with their G.M.'s comments on all this.

"You sit in a room with all your scouting people, you let them know how important they are, that they really are the lifeblood of what we're trying to do."

I think to a good extent this is what Hawk is upset about.

Lip

kittle42
04-25-2013, 11:37 AM
Whether or not you agree with Hawk, he's likely to get steamrolled in this one.

jdm2662
04-25-2013, 11:39 AM
Not defending or disagreeing with Hawk's position per se but one of his points that I think has been overlooked in the furor over his comments has been the human element.

One of Hawk's positions is that good baseball people are being let go because some organizations feel a computer can do a better job of talent evaluation than a human being.

And there is some truth to that, Washington let a number of people go for example, including former Sox pitcher Bart Johnson as they invested more heavily on the numbers approach to things.

Read the story on the Mariners this week in S.I. and the supposed boatload of youg talent they have and was impressed with their G.M.'s comments on all this.

"You sit in a room with all your scouting people, you let them know how important they are, that they really are the lifeblood of what we're trying to do."

I think to as good extent this is what Hawk is upset about.

Lip

I agree with this. I will be the first one to tell you can't go by in life by just using numbers. You need common sense as well. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for numbers, it just can't be solely relied on. I've expressed this at my current and past jobs, and my stats are usually the highest or near the top every time. Of course, it hasn't gotten me anymore, but that's another thread.

The problem is, guys like Hawk and other old timers completely dismiss it completely. Computers are a way of life and not just for advanced users anymore. Yes, they are replacing jobs of people, but that's been the case for over 15 years now. It's not going to change.

"I hate computers. They are ruining the country." -Al Bundy, 1989

SI1020
04-25-2013, 11:48 AM
I can't say what I want without opening up a giant can of worms. I'll just say that many businesses have lost both the arts of commons sense and evaluation. Particularly evaluation. You can never take a bloodless look at numbers no matter what your business is. It is so shorsighted and unproductive. As for Hawk, kittle will probably be right. Hawk could get steamrolled badly. It wouldn't make him wrong though.

amsteel
04-25-2013, 12:09 PM
I'm sure they'll have a well-reasoned, professional, non-shouty discussion.

kufram
04-25-2013, 12:16 PM
I love computers and numbers are a valuable tool to be used. My computer makes it possible for me to watch White Sox baseball from where I live (not always a rewarding experience!). It helps me enormously when writing and recording music. But I would never let a computer make a decision or call the shots.

aryzner
04-25-2013, 12:25 PM
I love computers and numbers are a valuable tool to be used. My computer makes it possible for me to watch White Sox baseball from where I live (not always a rewarding experience!). It helps me enormously when writing and recording music. But I would never let a computer make a decision or call the shots.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/WOPR.jpg

WhiteSox5187
04-25-2013, 12:55 PM
Whether or not you agree with Hawk, he's likely to get steamrolled in this one.

Agreed, although I think Brian Kenney is a bit of an idiot too. I think most people who are in Sabermetrics (at least in front office positions) can and will acknowledge that there is a huge human element that is at play when it comes to baseball and that cannot be quantified by any measure of statistical analysis. Hawk's original comment was "Give me a team of guys that want to win," that was stupid and hyperbolic.

His overall point though I THINK was that there are psychological elements that come into play that can't be quantified. You can use any cliche you would like, but there are in fact some guys who wilt under pressure, who can't play in large markets and some guys and teams who are able to produce more than the sum total of their parts would suggest. The reasons for that can't be quantified and I doubt they ever will be but they need to at least be acknowledged when you are talking about stats and player evaluation.

kittle42
04-25-2013, 01:19 PM
His overall point though I THINK was that there are psychological elements that come into play that can't be quantified. You can use any cliche you would like, but there are in fact some guys who wilt under pressure, who can't play in large markets and some guys and teams who are able to produce more than the sum total of their parts would suggest. The reasons for that can't be quantified and I doubt they ever will be but they need to at least be acknowledged when you are talking about stats and player evaluation.

And any wise saber person should admit that.

hawkjt
04-25-2013, 01:56 PM
One of Hawk's favorite Hawkisms is how he likes the lower drafted pitchers,because they often have not excelled on their superior stuff,but more on their competitiveness,and mound presence.

I think this is the essence of his issue with the sabremeticians dominating the personnel aspect of baseball. Also, I think he is still holding a grudge against Billy Beane from the comments attributed to Beane in MoneyBall that were unkind to Kenny Williams and the Sox.

That is where Hawk goes off the rails...and if he lets that surface,he will look dumb. Kenney as acknowledged that he likes to listen to Hawk do games,and that Hawk was not ungracious toward Kenney in this debate.

It goes back to Hawk hating B & B also....gutless wonders that they are.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 02:02 PM
And there is some truth to that, Washington let a number of people go for example, including former Sox pitcher Bart Johnson as they invested more heavily on the numbers approach to things.


Yeah, and look at the results... You're talking about a team that won 95 games last year and probably has the most enviable collection of under-25 talent assembled... maybe ever?

Sorry Hawk, just because the Sox act like a charity and keep your worthless ass around for no reason, good teams that actually, you know, win? Don't behave that way.

dickallen15
04-25-2013, 02:13 PM
Yeah, and look at the results... You're talking about a team that won 95 games last year and probably has the most enviable collection of under-25 talent assembled... maybe ever?

Sorry Hawk, just because the Sox act like a charity and keep your worthless ass around for no reason, good teams that actually, you know, win? Don't behave that way.

I really don't see how a team could rely very heavily on sabermetrics for a draft. HS and college baseball is a totally different game, from the aluminum bats, to the higher seamed baseballs that are used in the NCAA.

The Nationals were very fortunate to have the number 1 pick 2 times when there clearly was one player above all others. Any team not using sabermetrics at all would have drafted Strasberg and Harper.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 02:17 PM
I really don't see how a team could rely very heavily on sabermetrics for a draft. HS and college baseball is a totally different game, from the aluminum bats, to the higher seamed baseballs that are used in the NCAA.

The Nationals were very fortunate to have the number 1 pick 2 times when there clearly was one player above all others. Any team not using sabermetrics at all would have drafted Strasberg and Harper.

You're right, silly me, I was unaware that the Nats only fielded a 2-man roster. See, here I went and thought they had a 25-man team like the other 29 MLB franchises, but that's my mistake. I'll amend my posts in the future.

Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.

Hartman
04-25-2013, 02:21 PM
Why can't the solution be a nice mixture of both computer analytics and real world scouts? I also found Kenny's response to be odd in how pissed off he got at an old-timer's predictable opinion.

Either way, there is no upside to Hawk going on this show. It would be a bit like going on Piers Morgan's show and expecting a good outcome.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 02:23 PM
Why can't the solution be a nice mixture of both computer analytics and real world scouts?

That is what most teams do

chicagowhitesox1
04-25-2013, 02:34 PM
Is there a way to post the debat when it's over. I don't have the MLB Channel.

jdm2662
04-25-2013, 02:39 PM
What the hell, I went ahead and recorded this. Who says computers are bad? I just scheduled the recording while I'm at work on my iPhone...

dickallen15
04-25-2013, 02:41 PM
You're right, silly me, I was unaware that the Nats only fielded a 2-man roster. See, here I went and thought they had a 25-man team like the other 29 MLB franchises, but that's my mistake. I'll amend my posts in the future.

Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.

Silly you is right. The Nationals minor leagues are ranked fairly low (21 by Keith Law) and you posted this:

Yeah, and look at the results... You're talking about a team that won 95 games last year and probably has the most enviable collection of under-25 talent assembled... maybe ever?


The most enviable collection of under 25 talent assembled...maybe ever?
The Nationals currently have 4 players on their roster under 25. The two no brainers I mentioned and the incomparable Steve Lombardozzi and Anthony Rendon.

TDog
04-25-2013, 02:41 PM
I can't say what I want without opening up a giant can of worms. I'll just say that many businesses have lost both the arts of commons sense and evaluation. Particularly evaluation. You can never take a bloodless look at numbers no matter what your business is. It is so shorsighted and unproductive. As for Hawk, kittle will probably be right. Hawk could get steamrolled badly. It wouldn't make him wrong though.

Yeah, the premise that numbers don't lie is wildly false not just because peopel surrender professional judgment but because people are commonly looking at the wrong numbers. That's obviously true in business and in areas that are too political to get into. Sabermetrics isn't just about numbers, but it is about certain numbers being better than other numbers.

It started with metalurgy engineer Earnshaw Cook trying to show statisticlly what he believed, that Ty Cobb was better than Babe Ruth, writing a book that changed the way many look at baseball and gaining disciples that led to many believing they can rely on numbers to judge talent, not just in arguments over who had the better season or career, but who will have the better game, season or career. (By the way, getting back to a discussion a few weeks ago, has anyone looked at Jason Heyward's numbers lately?) The problem is, there is a lot of chaos theory that applies in baseball. There are adjustments on both offense and defense. There are hamstrings and hamate bones. There are short porches and triples alleys.

I read Cook a long time ago and understood what he was saying, and it influenced my belief that if I were the Astros in Game 4 in the 2005 World Series, I wouldn't have bunted the runner over in the ninth. But I would have bunted with Gillaspie in the ninth yesterday, and I was surprised Ventura didn't. The only thing I can figure is he knew more about the situation than I did. If I were Ventura, oreany other manager, I would know, at least hope to know a lot more than the isolated percentages of a situation before I make a decision. If I were a general manager, I would hope to know a lot more that a player's OPS before signing him to a contract, and I'm not talking about his WAR.

This isn't simply because once you get past organic statistics, simple raw numbers and averages, your numbers are getting more abstract. In some cases the sabermetrics people are ignoring organic stats because htey have decided they are unimportant. But how can you ignore Adam Dunn's batting average be unimportant? He is supposed to be an RBI man. He is supposed to be a run producer. You want him to hit with runners in scoring position. You put him in a spot in the order where he can drive in runs. You give him protection in the lineup so pitchers will pitch to him with runners in scoring position. Last year, he was the least likely to get a hit with a runner in scoring posiiton among players with more than a few opportunies on the White Sox, AND he led the White Sox in coming up with runners in scoring position. This year, no one on the White Sox has come up more times with runners in scoring position than Adam Dunn, and he is sub-.100 RISP man. Last year he came up with moe than 30 runners on third and less than two outs -- a deep fly or a ground ball into the shift will do -- and drove in fewer than 10, although Dewayne Wise robbed him in one such situation by being thrown out at third on what otherwise woudl have been a sacriice fly. Such facts should be statistically significant.

Don't tell me about his home runs if he's averaging less than two a week and he isn't doing anything else. Don't tell me about his OPS compared to someone eles's OPS. If you're watching the game, you can see Dunn has been a dismal failure in what he was signed to do, and that is ignoring his season before he was named the AL Comeback Player of the Year.

There was one early stats book, I don't think it was Cook's, that proposed the best batting order would place hitters in descending order based on their on-base percentages. Of course, that ignores that on-base percentages have a lot to do with where hitters hit in the order, who is hitting behind them and even who is on base in fronto of them. Here'w an idea. Let's lead off Swisher because he walks so much and watch him fail. Baseball is a game of role-players. It's a team sport where different players have diferent jobs. Winning is about execution. There are a lot of people who believe that sabermetrics misses the point becuase in their statistical analysis and what they choose to look at they limit what they see in the game.

I have found sabermetrics more popular among people who didn't play the game, although there are a few notable exceptions. In the end, debate on the topic is not going to change any minds. I'm not a Ken Harrelson fan, but I just hope he doesn't embarrass himself.

TheOldRoman
04-25-2013, 03:10 PM
Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.
So... what is your argument here? That having saber-versed scouts makes your coaching better?

kittle42
04-25-2013, 03:31 PM
The most enviable collection of under 25 talent assembled...maybe ever?
The Nationals currently have 4 players on their roster under 25. The two no brainers I mentioned and the incomparable Steve Lombardozzi and Anthony Rendon.

Uh, oh!!!!

Milw
04-25-2013, 04:09 PM
You're right, silly me, I was unaware that the Nats only fielded a 2-man roster. See, here I went and thought they had a 25-man team like the other 29 MLB franchises, but that's my mistake. I'll amend my posts in the future.

Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.

This is ridiculous. Harper was perhaps the most highly touted prospect in generations, and Strasburg is second. The Sox have never had a prospect comparable to either of them; that's not a fault of scouting or coaching, it's because they are once-in-a-generation talents. (OK, Mike Trout fans can argue, but the Sox weren't the only team to pass on him.)

Point is: Criticize the Sox scouting and coaching if you want, but you undermine your argument considerably when you bring Harper into it.

kittle42
04-25-2013, 04:12 PM
This is ridiculous. Harper was perhaps the most highly touted prospect in generations, and Strasburg is second. The Sox have never had a prospect comparable to either of them; that's not a fault of scouting or coaching, it's because they are once-in-a-generation talents. (OK, Mike Trout fans can argue, but the Sox weren't the only team to pass on him.)

Point is: Criticize the Sox scouting and coaching if you want, but you undermine your argument considerably when you bring Harper into it.

It is Sox management's fault in the sense that they obviously should have lost more games!

WhiteSox5187
04-25-2013, 04:17 PM
That is what most teams do

I would THINK that almost every team does that. What bothers me is that there are some sabermetrics commentators out there who completely write off the intangibles or anything that can't really be quantified, such as when Keith Law or Bill James dismiss the idea of "clutch," or even Billy Beane at one point said he would be a better GM if he never saw players play the game. That is what irritates me. When you have guys who at least acknowledge that stats can only go so far, those are the people that are intesting to listen to.

Milw
04-25-2013, 04:19 PM
I would THINK that almost every team does that. What bothers me is that there are some sabermetrics commentators out there who completely write off the intangibles or anything that can't really be quantified, such as when Keith Law or Bill James dismiss the idea of "clutch," or even Billy Beane at one point said he would be a better GM if he never saw players play the game. That is what irritates me. When you have guys who at least acknowledge that stats can only go so far, those are the people that are intesting to listen to.

This. I've never understood the extremist positions in this debate. People who ignore data analysis are stupid, but no worse than people who dismiss intangibles.

kittle42
04-25-2013, 04:31 PM
This. I've never understood the extremist positions in this debate. People who ignore data analysis are stupid, but no worse than people who dismiss intangibles.

I love stats, but this is correct.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 04:41 PM
This. I've never understood the extremist positions in this debate. People who ignore data analysis are stupid, but no worse than people who dismiss intangibles.

Nobody would disagree with that. The only people who think there's this giant class of baseball fans that ONLY care about stats and not traditional scouting and intangibles are the ones that ONLY value traditional scouting (a la Hawk) and think that any time someone mentions something like FIP, BABIP, or, god forbid, WAR, means they must hate the human element of baseball.

Stats make baseball better. Not worse.

Lip Man 1
04-25-2013, 04:46 PM
Dick:

Thanks for doing that research on the Nationals.

Lip

KingXerxes
04-25-2013, 04:48 PM
I can absolutely see where analysis of data pays dividends, and we've got an example of it right here in Chicago (although we're on the wrong side of it) with Adam Dunn.

A few years ago teams simply defended him in a regular "Ted Williams Shift", but evidently the numbers have shown that putting a fielder in short right would reduce his effectiveness.....and it has.

Stats are additional information plain and simple. Information which may or may not be used by teams to help make decisions. It's not an all or nothing proposition, and if a scout or GM uses this data it doesn't make him a automaton.

I'd must sooner have a guy making informed choices by using available data over somebody who thinks you can field a winner by getting guys who "bow their necks, cinch it up, strap it down, dial it in and hunker down".

The very fact Ken Harrelson opines on what makes a good team / GM makes me laugh out loud. He had his chance and how did that go? (See - Jose DeLeon for Bobby Bonilla)

TaylorStSox
04-25-2013, 04:50 PM
Silly you is right. The Nationals minor leagues are ranked fairly low (21 by Keith Law) and you posted this:

Yeah, and look at the results... You're talking about a team that won 95 games last year and probably has the most enviable collection of under-25 talent assembled... maybe ever?


The most enviable collection of under 25 talent assembled...maybe ever?
The Nationals currently have 4 players on their roster under 25. The two no brainers I mentioned and the incomparable Steve Lombardozzi and Anthony Rendon.

LOL! That's some incredible ownage right there.

WhiteSox5187
04-25-2013, 04:56 PM
Nobody would disagree with that. The only people who think there's this giant class of baseball fans that ONLY care about stats and not traditional scouting and intangibles are the ones that ONLY value traditional scouting (a la Hawk) and think that any time someone mentions something like FIP, BABIP, or, god forbid, WAR, means they must hate the human element of baseball.

Stats make baseball better. Not worse.

Having read some of the stuff written by Keith Law his attitude certainly strikes me as being in the class that is at the very least bordering on being dismissive of anything besides stats. There are some other writers, a couple of the guys on "FireJoeMorgan" (a site which I loved btw) that certainly SEEM to have a similar attitude. They are probably in the minority of the sabermetric community as I think there is some tacit acknowledgement of the limits of stats there.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 05:03 PM
Silly you is right. The Nationals minor leagues are ranked fairly low (21 by Keith Law) and you posted this:

Yeah, and look at the results... You're talking about a team that won 95 games last year and probably has the most enviable collection of under-25 talent assembled... maybe ever?


The most enviable collection of under 25 talent assembled...maybe ever?
The Nationals currently have 4 players on their roster under 25. The two no brainers I mentioned and the incomparable Steve Lombardozzi and Anthony Rendon.

Ah, bummer, you got me. Well, in my defense, Rendon is a legitimate blue chip prospect. If he were in our organization, he'd have all the hype Beckham did (Savior of the franchise). In Washington, he's maybe the 5th or 6th best young player on their team.

You also forgot Wilson Ramos, good young catcher as well.

And dang, I went with my gut and assumed guys like Gio and Zimmermann and Detweiler were still around the 25-year mark. I was off by two years. YA GOT ME! Can I amend my statements and say they have the best collection of under-30 talent assembled, easily in my lifetime (approximately 30 years?) Will that work?

Either way, if you'd like to point and laugh and say HA HA, this guy thought a guy whose really 26 was 25, then I think it still basically underscores my point that if Hawk and his ilk are going to whine about the approach the Nationals are taking; coming off a 95-win season and still have one of the youngest rosters in the Majors (average position player age is 27.9, 2nd youngest in NL, average pitcher age is 28, essentially tied for 3rd youngest in NL) because they're firing his buddies and actually producing results on the field, then it only further demonstrates that Hawk is nothing but a senile old coot who is only still employed in baseball in any capacity because he was lucky enough to find an owner who runs his team either like a charity and not a real business, or he's too cheap to actually get someone that knows what the hell they're doing.

Hawk sucks. I can't imagine why any Sox fan would want to subject themselves to more of his idiocy than the team already shoves down our throats.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 05:10 PM
Having read some of the stuff written by Keith Law his attitude certainly strikes me as being in the class that is at the very least bordering on being dismissive of anything besides stats. There are some other writers, a couple of the guys on "FireJoeMorgan" (a site which I loved btw) that certainly SEEM to have a similar attitude. They are probably in the minority of the sabermetric community as I think there is some tacit acknowledgement of the limits of stats there.

I can't defend Law because he does portray himself to be a gigantic idiot, BUT, he's a guy whose worked in upper management in baseball before so he surely does understand the value of traditional scouting. I have a feeling that he is more likely just playing a role for his writing career. Nobody really wants to read reasonable, well thought out dialogue on the internet, they want extremist nonsense. I think he's realized he can make more money by pretending to be the crazy nerdy saber guy instead of the smart, reasonable guy he probably is. That's the best I can guess for him, though, I have a feeling that he's pulling a Skip Bayless on all of us and pretending to be a charicature of himself for exposure.

The FJM guys A) are not members of the established baseball community, they're comedy TV writers and B) I think only took such a ridiculous over-the-top tone because, again, the target of most of their blogs were the equally ridiculous over-the-top old baseball dumb dumbs who think that the only three stats that matter are AVE, HR, and RBI. Remember, one of their best blogs was when they absolutely shredded Phil Rodgers of the Tribune for his ridiculous +1/-1 method of judging a team's off-season. Oh yeah. That was gold. How do you respond to something like that without snarky, insulting prose? It's so idiotic it's impossible.

I think if you talk to most established baseball minds they will tell you the advantages of having a strong scouting system. Even Theo Epstein, THE POSTAH BOY GAWD OF STATS has had poor Tom Ricketts pouring money into the Cubs' scouting department over the last few years.

Milw
04-25-2013, 05:23 PM
I can't defend Law because he does portray himself to be a gigantic idiot, BUT, he's a guy whose worked in upper management in baseball before so he surely does understand the value of traditional scouting. I have a feeling that he is more likely just playing a role for his writing career. Nobody really wants to read reasonable, well thought out dialogue on the internet, they want extremist nonsense. I think he's realized he can make more money by pretending to be the crazy nerdy saber guy instead of the smart, reasonable guy he probably is. That's the best I can guess for him, though, I have a feeling that he's pulling a Skip Bayless on all of us and pretending to be a charicature of himself for exposure.

The FJM guys A) are not members of the established baseball community, they're comedy TV writers and B) I think only took such a ridiculous over-the-top tone because, again, the target of most of their blogs were the equally ridiculous over-the-top old baseball dumb dumbs who think that the only three stats that matter are AVE, HR, and RBI. Remember, one of their best blogs was when they absolutely shredded Phil Rodgers of the Tribune for his ridiculous +1/-1 method of judging a team's off-season. Oh yeah. That was gold. How do you respond to something like that without snarky, insulting prose? It's so idiotic it's impossible.

I think if you talk to most established baseball minds they will tell you the advantages of having a strong scouting system. Even Theo Epstein, THE POSTAH BOY GAWD OF STATS has had poor Tom Ricketts pouring money into the Cubs' scouting department over the last few years.

So then Billy Beane's comment that he'd be a better GM if he didn't watch games is just him playing a caricature for exposure? Or does he not count as a "baseball insider?"

Milw
04-25-2013, 05:25 PM
Ah, bummer, you got me. Well, in my defense, Rendon is a legitimate blue chip prospect. If he were in our organization, he'd have all the hype Beckham did (Savior of the franchise). In Washington, he's maybe the 5th or 6th best young player on their team.

Yeah. Finishing in last place five years in a row can have that effect on a minor league system.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 05:41 PM
So then Billy Beane's comment that he'd be a better GM if he didn't watch games is just him playing a caricature for exposure? Or does he not count as a "baseball insider?"

His teams also never win anything, so, uh, great point???

ALSO, EDIT - He did have a national bestseller written about him and a Hollywood movie made about his life in which he was portrayed by Brad Pitt, so, you know, maybe????? I don't actually have any inside knowledge of the inner workings of the A's front office

doublem23
04-25-2013, 05:51 PM
Yeah. Finishing in last place five years in a row can have that effect on a minor league system.

And what, pray tell does that have to do with Rendon's ability as a player? Just pointing out the Bats enviable stable of young stars is a bit deeper than just Strasburg and Harper. And seriously, if turning around a team were as easy as finishing last a few consecutive seasons, that means the Pirates should be winning their 10th consecutive World Series this year, right? But no, you're right, the Nats are ruining baseball what with their focus on winning even if it means firing some old dinosaurs who don't belong in the 21st century and replacing them with THEM COMPUTER GIZMOS

Milw
04-25-2013, 05:53 PM
Nobody would disagree with that. The only people who think there's this giant class of baseball fans that ONLY care about stats and not traditional scouting and intangibles are the ones that ONLY value traditional scouting (a la Hawk) and think that any time someone mentions something like FIP, BABIP, or, god forbid, WAR, means they must hate the human element of baseball.

Stats make baseball better. Not worse.

His teams also never win anything, so, uh, great point???
Just pointing out the inaccuracy of your straw man argument.

DirtySox
04-25-2013, 06:13 PM
So no comments on said train-wreck interview? By all accounts Hawk made a complete ass of himself. TWTW is all that matters.

What a clown. The organization needs to put this embarrassment out to pasture.

soltrain21
04-25-2013, 06:14 PM
Apparently the Sox are embracing Hawk's TWTW line.

It's like they are trying their hardest to push me away.

DirtySox
04-25-2013, 06:16 PM
It's like they are trying their hardest to push me away.

My sentiment exactly.

asindc
04-25-2013, 06:19 PM
Ah, bummer, you got me. Well, in my defense, Rendon is a legitimate blue chip prospect. If he were in our organization, he'd have all the hype Beckham did (Savior of the franchise). In Washington, he's maybe the 5th or 6th best young player on their team.

You also forgot Wilson Ramos, good young catcher as well.

And dang, I went with my gut and assumed guys like Gio and Zimmermann and Detweiler were still around the 25-year mark. I was off by two years. YA GOT ME! Can I amend my statements and say they have the best collection of under-30 talent assembled, easily in my lifetime (approximately 30 years?) Will that work?

Either way, if you'd like to point and laugh and say HA HA, this guy thought a guy whose really 26 was 25, then I think it still basically underscores my point that if Hawk and his ilk are going to whine about the approach the Nationals are taking; coming off a 95-win season and still have one of the youngest rosters in the Majors (average position player age is 27.9, 2nd youngest in NL, average pitcher age is 28, essentially tied for 3rd youngest in NL) because they're firing his buddies and actually producing results on the field, then it only further demonstrates that Hawk is nothing but a senile old coot who is only still employed in baseball in any capacity because he was lucky enough to find an owner who runs his team either like a charity and not a real business, or he's too cheap to actually get someone that knows what the hell they're doing.

Hawk sucks. I can't imagine why any Sox fan would want to subject themselves to more of his idiocy than the team already shoves down our throats.

All of the Nats' blue chippers, whether with the big club or in the minors, are the kinds of talents that could have been identified without being well-versed in advanced metrics. Though I've ridiculed blind adherence to sabrmetrics (Keith Law, that means you), I recognize that they generally have been helpful in identifying talent and player tendencies that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. But elite talent does not fall in that category. On the contrary, I think over-reliance on advance metrics leads some people to overlook the obvious, if anything.

Bob Roarman
04-25-2013, 06:20 PM
"Did you box, Brian? I did a lot of fighting in the street and in the ring."

Hahaha, oh my. Ohhhh my.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 06:26 PM
Just pointing out the inaccuracy of your straw man argument.

I guess, although, do you have any kind of citation or context for that quote? I don't doubt Beane at one point may have said it, but just a single sentence in isolation can be taken wildly out of context. I could very easily see him meaning that he can't watch the games personally because, as management, it's more difficult to do your job when you develop an emotional attachment to your employees (players). You don't have to dig too deep on this board to find plenty of garbage players the Sox have trotted out there the last few years who have ardent supporters; there are folks who defend Brian Anderson of the .227 career BA that he didn't get a fair shake. Or that Brent Lillibridge and his career .207 BA is the answer to our depth problems.

I know I usually abhor these real world/sports world metaphors, but I think this one actually works - I've been in management positions before where you have to work on restructuring or downsizing an organization and it's difficult to think of the little boxes you're crossing out as real people. It's probably the same logic he's alluding too, a guy whose that invested a team can't help but develop illogical emotional attachments to players if he watches them 162 times per year. It doesn't say anything about not wanting to have traditional scouts give him information about their observations or that they cut traditional scouting out altogether, for all we know, he just means HE'S better at HIS job if he only visualizes the players are lines in a spreadsheet or numbers on paper.

:dunno:

You know what Thomas Jefferson said about believing everything you read on the internet.

doublem23
04-25-2013, 06:28 PM
On the contrary, I think over-reliance on advance metrics leads some people to overlook the obvious, if anything.

Over reliance on either means you're missing important information. I don't see what's so radical about that concept. Nobody making decisions should be wittingly denying themselves information about the things those decisions affect.

shingo10
04-25-2013, 06:30 PM
I find it both beautiful and sad what Hawk is doing. He has every right to stick up for what he believes in and how he believes the game should be played. Its sad that he is resisting change so hard but should probably be expected from a man his age.

jdm2662
04-25-2013, 06:32 PM
So no comments on said train-wreck interview? By all accounts Hawk made a complete ass of himself. TWTW is all that matters.

What a clown. The organization needs to put this embarrassment out to pasture.

The will to win! I recorded and watch it. Wow Hawk, you are a bitter old man. Retire already. But, it's good to know you had fights in and out of the ring. Gotta show you are a tough guy!

soltrain21
04-25-2013, 06:34 PM
I find it both beautiful and sad what Hawk is doing. He has every right to stick up for what he believes in and how he believes the game should be played. Its sad that he is resisting change so hard but should probably be expected from a man his age.

The game is played exactly the same way.

Hawk apparently just wants 25 David Ecksteins.

kobo
04-25-2013, 06:52 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/top-hawk-harrelson-quotes-sabermetrics-debate-brian-kenny-221935763--mlb.html

Why the Sox continue to stick up for Harrelson and use his obnoxious quotes is beyond me. I'm sick of this man being the face of the franchise.

DirtySox
04-25-2013, 06:55 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/top-hawk-harrelson-quotes-sabermetrics-debate-brian-kenny-221935763--mlb.html

Why the Sox continue to stick up for Harrelson and use his obnoxious quotes is beyond me. I'm sick of this man being the face of the franchise.

If this becomes some sort of marketing campaign I'll be sick. Nothing like embracing willful ignorance and stupidity!

kobo
04-25-2013, 06:57 PM
If this becomes some sort of marketing campaign I'll be sick. Nothing like embracing willful ignorance and stupidity!
With the way the marketing has gone this season I won't be surprised if this happens.

DirtySox
04-25-2013, 06:57 PM
Bruce Levine ‏@ESPNBruceLevine 38s
Hawk Harrelson "TWTW " T shirts already available in White Sox gift shops courtesy of VP of marketing Brooks Boyer.

Welp.

kobo
04-25-2013, 07:02 PM
Welp.
:facepalm:

soxnut1018
04-25-2013, 07:08 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIu-ZegCQAAoFlh.jpg



Embarrassing.

DrCrawdad
04-25-2013, 07:17 PM
One of Hawk's favorite Hawkisms is how he likes the lower drafted pitchers,because they often have not excelled on their superior stuff,but more on their competitiveness,and mound presence.

I think this is the essence of his issue with the sabremeticians dominating the personnel aspect of baseball. Also, I think he is still holding a grudge against Billy Beane from the comments attributed to Beane in MoneyBall that were unkind to Kenny Williams and the Sox.

That is where Hawk goes off the rails...and if he lets that surface,he will look dumb. Kenney as acknowledged that he likes to listen to Hawk do games,and that Hawk was not ungracious toward Kenney in this debate.

It goes back to Hawk hating B & B also....gutless wonders that they are.

B&B, used to enjoy their show. But I don't have the time nor occasion to hear much from them. Then when I do I soon change radio stations.

I don't care what The Hawk says about baseball theory. I listen to The Hawk much the same reason I used to listen to Harry Caray, entertainment.

I find the constant bashing of The Hawk boring & repetitive. You can put that on the board.

Oh and I did hear a few minutes of B&B crosstalk on Opening Day. Bernstein was gushing, a serious mancrush, over Anthony Rizzo...how Rizzo has the best swing, how beautiful it is and how well Rizzo was going to do this season.

Stanley
04-25-2013, 07:49 PM
No question, Hawk makes my blood boil. I mean I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he has no business being our (or anyone's) announcer anymore because he is a baby, and because of this ridiculous cronyism in the Sox organization that oftentimes runs counter to professionalism and consistency has gone on too long.

That being said, I didn't catch the MLBT throwdown today but I saw this The Will To Win thing and as much as I loathe Hawk, I can't argue with what he's saying there. It's something I've thought about a lot, being an athlete, loving baseball, and watching certain guys over the years like Beckham, for example, fall on his face despite lofty goals and hype, while someone like Matt Kemp or Andrew McCutchen (or pick someone else that was a 5th rounder or something that has gone one to be a star) can seemingly dominate the game at times.

I don't have enough time to get that deep into it right now but maybe I'll chime in later if someone else takes it from here.

TDog
04-25-2013, 08:01 PM
The will to win! I recorded and watch it. Wow Hawk, you are a bitter old man. Retire already. But, it's good to know you had fights in and out of the ring. Gotta show you are a tough guy!


Harrelson may well be a bitter old man who should have retired years ago. I have never liked him as an announcer except in the knowlege that he was no longer the GM, where I wasn't a fan of his talent evaluation. But I believe the etiquette of television prevented him from making his point effectively. I've heard other baseball coaches managers say pretty much the same thing.

I don't believe Harrelson was talking about a team full of David Ecksteins. I don't think he was talking about a lineup of Paul Konerkos because I think he would be looking for more speed in most of the spots in the order.

What I have heard is coaches and managers disdaining some players with monster numbers because they don't have a strong will to win. If you're comparing players achieving at similar planes of production, it isn't necessarily the player who has the better numbers who you should want on a winning team.

Harrelson isn't going to talk about the players he wouldn't take over Konerko despite their superior numbers, not for an audience anyway. But every White Sox fan has seen pitchers put up good numbers who didn't seem to care enough about winning.

Stanley
04-25-2013, 08:08 PM
You bring up a good point, Tdog, and that's Justin Upton. After endless trade speculation surrounding him and doubts about his...will to win (I'm already starting to sour on this idea), he was traded to the Braves this year and he's done nothing but rub it in Kevin Towers face so far.

Of course it is a long season, and not much of it has been played so far, but still we can't just say (like Hawk is doing) that TWTW is the ultimate factor in a players success. I'm starting to think Hawk doesn't even believe that himself and he's kinda pulling a Dubya by ramping up the hucksterism because it goes along with his personality and because some people still eat it up (and he knows it).

Boondock Saint
04-25-2013, 08:12 PM
:facepalm:

That's not nearly enough facepalm.

kobo
04-25-2013, 08:15 PM
How about instead of The Will To Win it's the Will To Hit the Baseball. Or the Will To Not Make An error. Or The Will To Draw A Walk. Because the Sox need a lot more of those type of Will's than TWTW.

thomas35forever
04-25-2013, 08:20 PM
I don't think Hawk is right or wrong here. It's all a matter of what mindset you're most willing to accept. Even for a younger fan, I find some of these expanded forms of stats confusing at times. I'm sure if I set aside the proper time, I'd understand them all as well as anyone. Us fans can believe what we want, but it would be best for every team to use it regardless. This is what baseball's future is no matter how much we try to fight it.

soltrain21
04-25-2013, 08:22 PM
I don't think Hawk is right or wrong here. It's all a matter of what mindset you're most willing to accept. Even for a younger fan, I find some of these expanded forms of stats confusing at times. I'm sure if I set aside the proper time, I'd understand them all as well as anyone. Us fans can believe what we want, but it would be best for every team to use it regardless. This is what baseball's future is no matter how much we try to fight it.

To create an ad campaign around ideas of your dip**** announcer is awful.

Bob Roarman
04-25-2013, 08:42 PM
I don't think Hawk is right or wrong here. It's all a matter of what mindset you're most willing to accept. Even for a younger fan, I find some of these expanded forms of stats confusing at times. I'm sure if I set aside the proper time, I'd understand them all as well as anyone. Us fans can believe what we want, but it would be best for every team to use it regardless. This is what baseball's future is no matter how much we try to fight it.

No he's wrong. To be as far to the extreme that he is on this debate, he's wrong. Just like everyone else, on both sides of this argument, that are to that kind of extreme. And that's the problem I have with Hawk over everything else as a baseball announcer. It's not his stupid sayings or nicknames or bias or moments of silence when the Sox do something bad. It's that he is flat out wrong about baseball quite often. On a daily basis.

As a play by play guy, that should be seen as unacceptable by your employers. Especially by employers that, at least some degree like just about every other MLB team, use the kind of sabermetrics in their decision making that he decries as bull****.

shingo10
04-25-2013, 09:23 PM
No he's wrong. To be as far to the extreme that he is on this debate, he's wrong. Just like everyone else, on both sides of this argument, that are to that kind of extreme. And that's the problem I have with Hawk over everything else as a baseball announcer. It's not his stupid sayings or nicknames or bias or moments of silence when the Sox do something bad. It's that he is flat out wrong about baseball quite often. On a daily basis.

As a play by play guy, that should be seen as unacceptable by your employers. Especially by employers that, at least some degree like just about every other MLB team, use the kind of sabermetrics in their decision making that he decries as bull****.

When it comes to credibility as far as announcers go I'm going to believe the guy that batted behind a Triple Crown winner, was an all star (before fans voted), and finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1968 over a guy who never picked up a bat but has a good voice.

Hawk does know baseball but he isn't willing to consider sabermetrics because he is still stuck in a different era of baseball. I think its okay and actually refreshing.

As far as marketing TWTW i think it is genius. Controversy creates cash and up until now this has been a bland team. This will give it some personality and an attitude from a marketing perspective.

Brian26
04-25-2013, 09:24 PM
Bruce Levine ‏@ESPNBruceLevine 38s
Hawk Harrelson "TWTW " T shirts already available in White Sox gift shops courtesy of VP of marketing Brooks Boyer.

Welp.


:hawk
"Welp......that didn't take long."

soltrain21
04-25-2013, 09:31 PM
When it comes to credibility as far as announcers go I'm going to believe the guy that batted behind a Triple Crown winner, was an all star (before fans voted), and finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1968 over a guy who never picked up a bat but has a good voice.

Hawk does know baseball but he isn't willing to consider sabermetrics because he is still stuck in a different era of baseball. I think its okay and actually refreshing.

As far as marketing TWTW i think it is genius. Controversy creates cash and up until now this has been a bland team. This will give it some personality and an attitude from a marketing perspective.

It will turn into a bigger joke than "all in"

Stanley
04-25-2013, 09:36 PM
:hawk
"Welp......that didn't take long."

LOL.

I agree with Shingo, here, although I hate calling things genius, personally.

"As far as marketing TWTW i think it is genius. Controversy creates cash and up until now this has been a bland team. This will give it some personality and an attitude from a marketing perspective."

Brian26
04-25-2013, 09:42 PM
Here is the entire interview:

hXYvc1JGcgo

Bob Roarman
04-25-2013, 09:48 PM
When it comes to credibility as far as announcers go I'm going to believe the guy that batted behind a Triple Crown winner, was an all star (before fans voted), and finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1968 over a guy who never picked up a bat but has a good voice.

Hawk does know baseball but he isn't willing to consider sabermetrics because he is still stuck in a different era of baseball. I think its okay and actually refreshing.



Well that's your loss then. Plenty of good analysts/writers out there covering every sport that haven't ever played in the big leagues in any of them. I don't use the word "hate" often but I hate this idea where if you didn't make it to the big time, there's no way your word is more credible than someone who did or you are less "worthy" or "deserving" to comment on that particular sport. There are tons of ex-athletes that are just bad when it comes to actually having to analyze their sport or talk about it or have a hand in running it. Tons of examples. Too many to list.

Also, how being stuck in the past is considered "refreshing" is beyond me.

WhiteSox5187
04-25-2013, 09:58 PM
Here is the entire interview:

hXYvc1JGcgo

I watched about five minutes of that before I had to turn it off. Strangely, I thought that Hawk did better than I thought he would. I think he was wrong but for all the right reasons. His points about Harold Reynolds and the little things that a guy can do in a game (such as turning the double play quickly or snaring a grounder that at least keeps a guy from going to first to third) is absolutely correct. I also think he's right when he calls Brian Kenny out on bunting by pointing out that every game and every at bat is different, however that whole WTW or whatever the hell it is is such a load of bull****. EVERY one wants to win, that's how you get to the majors.

It would have been interesting to hear Steve Stone in that segment, he seems to take that balanced approach to sabermetrics and the intangibles.

Stanley
04-25-2013, 10:11 PM
I watched about five minutes of that before I had to turn it off.

You beat me. I had enough at 3:45.

kittle42
04-25-2013, 10:39 PM
Well that's your loss then. Plenty of good analysts/writers out there covering every sport that haven't ever played in the big leagues in any of them. I don't use the word "hate" often but I hate this idea where if you didn't make it to the big time, there's no way your word is more credible than someone who did or you are less "worthy" or "deserving" to comment on that particular sport. There are tons of ex-athletes that are just bad when it comes to actually having to analyze their sport or talk about it or have a hand in running it. Tons of examples. Too many to list.

Also, how being stuck in the past is considered "refreshing" is beyond me.

A-****ing-men on all points. I HATE the "those who played the game automatically have more credibility" argument.

And being stuck in the past is not a good thing.

TDog
04-25-2013, 10:50 PM
It will turn into a bigger joke than "all in"

It sounds more like, really an aweful lot like "win or die trying.''

shingo10
04-25-2013, 10:52 PM
A-****ing-men on all points. I HATE the "those who played the game automatically have more credibility" argument.

And being stuck in the past is not a good thing.


I enjoy hearing tales of how baseball used to be and how it is changed. I like the old time feel to the broadcast. Wasn't around to see baseball before the 90's so I enjoy learning about the characters and way things were done back then.

As far as the other thing, actually doing something makes you more credible in my opinion. You have your own experiences to draw on. I didn't say the other guys weren't credible, I said I would tend to find Hawk more credible. Not every jock that ESPN runs out there but Hawk. To me what he has to say carries more weight because he has been around for so many "eras" of baseball. Just my opinion. Listen to the new, polished announcers if it floats your boat.

soxnut1018
04-25-2013, 11:06 PM
As far as the other thing, actually doing something makes you more credible in my opinion. You have your own experiences to draw on. I didn't say the other guys weren't credible, I said I would tend to find Hawk more credible. Not every jock that ESPN runs out there but Hawk. To me what he has to say carries more weight because he has been around for so many "eras" of baseball. Just my opinion. Listen to the new, polished announcers if it floats your boat.

And if you ever forget, he'll be sure to let you know.

Bob Roarman
04-25-2013, 11:12 PM
As far as the other thing, actually doing something makes you more credible in my opinion. You have your own experiences to draw on. I didn't say the other guys weren't credible, I said I would tend to find Hawk more credible. Not every jock that ESPN runs out there but Hawk. To me what he has to say carries more weight because he has been around for so many "eras" of baseball. Just my opinion. Listen to the new, polished announcers if it floats your boat.

You said yourself he was stuck in his own era of baseball and hasn't or doesn't want to change as the game has. Why oh why would you trust what he says as being accurate to the game as it's understood today? How is that "value" of his seen as a good thing to you?

Soxman219
04-25-2013, 11:12 PM
Here is the entire interview:

hXYvc1JGcgo



:bundy:facepalm:

KingXerxes
04-25-2013, 11:47 PM
If ownership is somehow involved with this, and they are doubling down with Ken Harrelson as the marketing voice of the White Sox - we're doomed.

This guy is a bitter self-promoter and a complete lackey.

Things just keep getting worse.

shingo10
04-25-2013, 11:49 PM
You said yourself he was stuck in his own era of baseball and hasn't or doesn't want to change as the game has. Why oh why would you trust what he says as being accurate to the game as it's understood today? How is that "value" of his seen as a good thing to you?


I enjoy the perspective of it. It's a complete change of pace from most other announcers and I do find some truth in what he says. Especially about baseball being a kids game. Thats why I enjoyed Buehrle so much. Did he ever shake off the catcher? He just threw and did not overthink. Keep it Simple Stupid applies to everything IMO including baseball.

We could try to discredit each others opinions and keep going in circles but each of us is entitled. I don't think you're wrong, I'm just saying that as a Hawk fan I appreciate what he brings. I'm probably one of the few that is proud of the fact he is our announcer. But I get why others don't like him.

kittle42
04-25-2013, 11:49 PM
Listen to the new, polished announcers if it floats your boat.

Yeah, Vin Scully is less credible than Hawk by your logic.

Bob Roarman
04-25-2013, 11:54 PM
I enjoy the perspective of it. It's a complete change of pace from most other announcers and I do find some truth in what he says. Especially about baseball being a kids game. Thats why I enjoyed Buehrle so much. Did he ever shake off the catcher? He just threw and did not overthink. Keep it Simple Stupid applies to everything IMO including baseball.


Well see that's different from what you said. You said he was more credible in the way he sees/calls the game. But at the same time you admit he hasn't been able to change with the game. So....yeah, you are going in circles. Only so many contradicting statements one can make.

chicagowhitesox1
04-26-2013, 01:50 AM
I thought Hawks projected stats for the 2000 Rockies was interesting. Brian Kenny said his 1968 stats would be a 348 average, 49 homeruns, 187 RBI'S, 438 OBP and 652 Slugging. I think that may be a little off base especially the RBI's and i'm sure Brian Kenny was using that to get Hawk to change his mind on saber stats. In reality steroids are why everyone hit so well in 2000 not so much ballpark factors.

lpneck
04-26-2013, 04:47 AM
If "TWTW" is actually a, um, thing- I'm not sure that it's the right marketing slogan for a team with generally the laziest player I have ever watched in a Sox uniform in the middle of the lineup- and during the games he has played in his career, his team is 138 games below .500.

balke
04-26-2013, 06:11 AM
Can I amend my statements and say they have the best collection of under-30 talent assembled, easily in my lifetime (approximately 30 years?) Will that work?


2003 Marlins? If you don't use 20/20 hindsight - that team was looking insanely good back then. Some guys fizzled - but who's to say some Nationals won't?

C Ramon Castro 27 (and Ivan Rodriguez was only 31)
1B Derek Lee 27
2B Luis Castillo 27
3b Miguel Cabrera 20
3B Mike Lowell 29
SS Alex Gonzalez 26
LF Juan Pierre 25
RF-CF Juan Encarnacion 27

SP Brad Penny 25
SP Carl Pavano 27
SP Dontrelle Willis 21
SP Josh Beckett 23
SP AJ Burnett 26
SP Mark Redman 29

P Ugueth Urbina 29
P Braden Looper 28
(and I'll throw in Tim Spooneybarger at 23 for kicks).


Guys in Minors:
Edwin Jackson 19
Shane Victorino 22
Joel Hanrahan 21
Scott Linebrink 26

And a guy who never blossomed:
Reggie Abercrombie 22

asindc
04-26-2013, 06:23 AM
Yeah, Vin Scully is less credible than Hawk by your logic.

I see nothing wrong with that conclusion.

joegraz
04-26-2013, 06:40 AM
How many times have you heard people complain that a "company is being run by the bean counters"? Bean counters use spread sheets, and hey, "numbers don't lie".

But the numbers never tell the whole story, and that is the real message here. Unfortunately, somebody thought it would be a great idea if Hawk delivered that message....to a national @#^$)#@# audience!!!

aryzner
04-26-2013, 08:09 AM
I knew it would be an embarrassing interview, but it honestly was not as bad as I thought it would be.

Hawk sure reiterated defense a good amount. At least he's right about most of what he said on that end of the game regarding pitching and defense.

Moses_Scurry
04-26-2013, 08:26 AM
If the slogan is "the will to win", don't they have to, you know, win? Or is this one of those "ironic" things?

Stanley
04-26-2013, 09:24 AM
Yeah, if they continue to struggle and are hovering around or below .500 for most of the year, it will be hard to stomach TWTW, especially for the players I'd imagine. Will they abandon it if the team is losing? That would be awkward...

I like seeing that Rios tweeted "#TWTW" right after the segment aired, and that the players seem to respond to it, as opposed to the "All In" slogan.

shingo10
04-26-2013, 09:28 AM
Well see that's different from what you said. You said he was more credible in the way he sees/calls the game. But at the same time you admit he hasn't been able to change with the game. So....yeah, you are going in circles. Only so many contradicting statements one can make.

Yes, I find Hawk Harrelson more credible than most other announcers. I think he is more credible in how he sees the game because of his unique perspective of being around for so long. That clear enough?

Tried to be respectful to your point of view but apparently you aren't willing to do the same. Stay classy.

TDog
04-26-2013, 09:55 AM
I don't think Harrelson was saying the White Sox as a team have the will to win. I think he was saying that to build a winner you have to have players who have the will to win.

Sabermetrics people had no problem with the Adam Dunn signing. Fans have since complained pretty much that he hasn't shown the will to win. Not having the will to win was something White Sox fans regularly accused Javier Vazquez of not having the will to win.

The reaction here seems to be as if Harrelson said the White Sox will prevail because they have the will to win. What I heard is what fans have always wanted to see from their teams, and what White Sox fans often complain they don't see from theirs.

soxnut1018
04-26-2013, 10:00 AM
Sabermetrics people had no problem with the Adam Dunn signing. Fans have since complained pretty much that he hasn't shown the will to win. Not having the will to win was something White Sox fans regularly accused Javier Vazquez of not having the will to win.

No, fans (sabermetric people included) have complained about him being awful. I don't give a crap about his will to win, I care that he hits home runs and gets on base.

kittle42
04-26-2013, 10:02 AM
Yeah, if they continue to struggle and are hovering around or below .500 for most of the year, it will be hard to stomach TWTW, especially for the players I'd imagine. Will they abandon it if the team is losing? That would be awkward...

I like seeing that Rios tweeted "#TWTW" right after the segment aired, and that the players seem to respond to it, as opposed to the "All In" slogan.

Maybe they mean Lip's magic 83 games, which as we all know is a good season!

kittle42
04-26-2013, 10:03 AM
Yes, I find Hawk Harrelson more credible than most other announcers. I think he is more credible in how he sees the game because of his unique perspective of being around for so long. That clear enough?

Tried to be respectful to your point of view but apparently you aren't willing to do the same. Stay classy.

No need to be snippy. You really were going in circles. You made the statement you made in this post and then sorta contradicted it elsewhere.

SCCWS
04-26-2013, 10:20 AM
I saw a brief discussion on ESPN about Dunn from Reynolds and Plesac last night. They mentioned that Dunn went from the terrible 2011 to the "improved" 2012. They even laughed that last year was considered a great improvement since 2011 was so bad. But they wonder if the poor start this year will be a huge mental block for him since he is in 2011 mode only worse so far.

Speaking of sabremetrics----how about the NFL Draft. They live and die by sprint speeds, arm lengths, lifts etc. Everbody seems to be pigeon-holed by statistics.

dickallen15
04-26-2013, 10:27 AM
I think if you're not using both traditional and sabermetrics, you are missing the boat.

One question about sabermetrics regarding WAR. That seems like the number so many people use as an end all. Has anyone ever added up every teams individual WAR and put them into standings at the end of the season? And if they have, how do they match the actual results?

shingo10
04-26-2013, 10:29 AM
No need to be snippy. You really were going in circles. You made the statement you made in this post and then sorta contradicted it elsewhere.


Fair enough.

hawkjt
04-26-2013, 12:05 PM
I think if you're not using both traditional and sabermetrics, you are missing the boat.

One question about sabermetrics regarding WAR. That seems like the number so many people use as an end all. Has anyone ever added up every teams individual WAR and put them into standings at the end of the season? And if they have, how do they match the actual results?


Hawk is not the Sox GM so he is not making player personnel decisions,so his opinions on stats vs eyetest do not impact the Sox on the field...all that really matters.

I find WAR to be a very unwielding way of assessing how a player is playing at the current time. It seems like the sabermetricians reject players ''getting hot'' and assume all production is completely random. I disagree. They do not value ''clutch'' hitting or believe certain players are better than others in those situations. They do not believe that RBI is a valid stat,because it is all random....this is why I reject some of their hardline beliefs.

Hawk is no better or worse than these folks...he believes in the eyeball test...as do I. Hawk is a story teller as a play by play guy,and while it can be tiresome, I still like it better than the cold fish approach from the newer generation.

Domeshot17
04-26-2013, 12:28 PM
Here is my problem with this and it is a big one:

Hawk is publicly bashing SABR and its effectiveness. Our GM, Rick Hahn, is a SABR guy. So he is really throwing Rick under the bus, without even realizing it.

Hawk continues to sound like an old, clueless fool.

He is costing the Sox fans, and he embarrassing our team.

CoopaLoop
04-26-2013, 12:31 PM
Scanned quickly and didn't see a link to this. Anyone got one?

Stanley
04-26-2013, 12:35 PM
Hawk is no better or worse than these folks...he believes in the eyeball test...as do I. Hawk is a story teller as a play by play guy,and while it can be tiresome, I still like it better than the cold fish approach from the newer generation.

I wouldn't say Hawk follows the old approach as much as he does his own very peculiar and tiresome one. He exists in a league of his own considering the dreadful silences, the pouting when losing, the pettiness, and so on and so on.

Baseball announcers have one of the best jobs in the world, IMO, and Steve Stone tried to stress as much at the end of last season with his parting words: "You have to enjoy what you do". I often wish there would be an influx of new announcers that think outside the box and have fresh ideas on how to draw people into the game and make it more exciting for the average fan and the more hardcore, as well. When I do watch other broadcasts in different cities I'm not usually overwhelmed by the creativity and lucidity in which they call a game, but in contrast I'm often really embarrassed when I'm reminded of White Sox announcer situation.

TDog
04-26-2013, 01:46 PM
No, fans (sabermetric people included) have complained about him being awful. I don't give a crap about his will to win, I care that he hits home runs and gets on base.

Again, I don't think Harrelson was talking about players being crappy but having the will to win.

The point being glossed over is that free agents who are signed to big contracts after posting numbers often never come close to posting those numbers again. If Adam Dunn is crappy after his signing initially excited people who liked his pre-signing numbers, it's either that the numbers didn't provide enough information about Dunn to justify the signing and he should have been scouted more thoroughly during his last season in Washington or he was playing to get the big contract and after signing it lacked the will to win (or perhaps a combination of both). Complaining about Dunn having crappy numbers, career bad by a wide-margin into his third year after signing a huge contract is the sort of thing I think Harrelson was talking about when he was talking about the will to win. Really, I thought that was obvious.

Because Harrelson didn't call out any players, and I believe it would have been wrong for him to do so, people seem to think he was talking about taking about wanting to go into the season with a bunch of Rodney McCrays running through walls. I think it is more inaccurate to read a defense of the White Sox philosophy into his statements, as if the White Sox signed Adam Dunn because they believed he was put up crappy numbers that didn't matter becuase he has the will to win.

Harry Caray, the White Sox Harry Caray, not the one who lacked the will to be an honest and even entertainingly offensive broadcaster after signing for the big bucks with the Cubs, would have said the same thing. But he would have named names and left no room for ambiguity.

Domeshot17
04-26-2013, 02:03 PM
Again, I don't think Harrelson was talking about players being crappy but having the will to win.

The point being glossed over is that free agents who are signed to big contracts after posting numbers often never come close to posting those numbers again. If Adam Dunn is crappy after his signing initially excited people who liked his pre-signing numbers, it's either that the numbers didn't provide enough information about Dunn to justify the signing and he should have been scouted more thoroughly during his last season in Washington or he was playing to get the big contract and after signing it lacked the will to win (or perhaps a combination of both). Complaining about Dunn having crappy numbers, career bad by a wide-margin into his third year after signing a huge contract is the sort of thing I think Harrelson was talking about when he was talking about the will to win. Really, I thought that was obvious.

Because Harrelson didn't call out any players, and I believe it would have been wrong for him to do so, people seem to think he was talking about taking about wanting to go into the season with a bunch of Rodney McCrays running through walls. I think it is more inaccurate to read a defense of the White Sox philosophy into his statements, as if the White Sox signed Adam Dunn because they believed he was put up crappy numbers that didn't matter becuase he has the will to win.

Harry Caray, the White Sox Harry Caray, not the one who lacked the will to be an honest and even entertainingly offensive broadcaster after signing for the big bucks with the Cubs, would have said the same thing. But he would have named names and left no room for ambiguity.

Is this a joke? Look at Adam Dunn's Numbers throughout his career before the Sox, he was one of the most consistent hitters in all of baseball. Every year was about 260-40-100-900.

kittle42
04-26-2013, 02:15 PM
Is this a joke? Look at Adam Dunn's Numbers throughout his career before the Sox, he was one of the most consistent hitters in all of baseball. Every year was about 260-40-100-900.

C'mon, Dome - people should have obviously seen in that last year in Washington that little hitch in his swing that indicated that he would be lazy and not have TWTW if someone signed him to a big free agent contract! This is why you can't just look at numbers - you have to see his eyes!

DSpivack
04-26-2013, 02:20 PM
C'mon, Dome - people should have obviously seen in that last year in Washington that little hitch in his swing that indicated that he would be lazy and not have TWTW if someone signed him to a big free agent contract! This is why you can't just look at numbers - you have to see his eyes!

He's not completely wrong. Many free agents don't live up to the contracts they signed. That's not because they lack the will to win or some such nonsense, but because after 7 years of MLB service it's more likely than not that they are on the downsides of their career. Dunn with the Sox isn't putting up the .260-40-100 lines that he did earlier in his career, and that much isn't exactly shocking.

doublem23
04-26-2013, 02:29 PM
He's not completely wrong. Many free agents don't live up to the contracts they signed. That's not because they lack the will to win or some such nonsense, but because after 7 years of MLB service it's more likely than not that they are on the downsides of their career. Dunn with the Sox isn't putting up the .260-40-100 lines that he did earlier in his career, and that much isn't exactly shocking.

That's true, but Dunn's struggles with the Sox are still nothing short of stunning. The idea that SABR folks think that stats alone can 100% predict the future is another one of these ridiculous strawmen arguments anti-SABR people make to try and justify their old school methods. Past performance is never a guarantee of future performance, but the question is which way is better? Even if you hated Dunn and don't think his approach to baseball is good, I would wager to bet that anyone who relies solely on the eye test would be stunned to know that in nearly 300 games with the Sox, Dunn's slash line is .179/.307/.377.

doublem23
04-26-2013, 02:35 PM
I find WAR to be a very unwielding way of assessing how a player is playing at the current time. It seems like the sabermetricians reject players ''getting hot'' and assume all production is completely random. I disagree. They do not value ''clutch'' hitting or believe certain players are better than others in those situations. They do not believe that RBI is a valid stat,because it is all random....this is why I reject some of their hardline beliefs.

WAR is a counting stat, no different than any other. It is not intended to be used as "who is the best player right now?" It's supposed to define one's entire body of work. Just in the same way a guy with 20 career HR might homer in the same guy a guy with 500 career HR might now. That doesn't mean the guy who hit 20 career HR was a more prolific power hitter than the 500 HR guy, it just means that in that one day, he was.

And RBIs are not viewed as invalid because "they're random," it's because they're so heavily dependent on your teammates. Last year there were 9,629 RBIs recorded in the AL and 2,500 HR hit. That means that 7,129 (almost 75%) of the RBIs were scored by another player than the guy at the plate. That's too much dependence on players other than the one being guaged. There are MANY, MANY better stats, even for the dubious "clutch hitting" argument, that do not depend on your teammates.

TDog
04-26-2013, 03:06 PM
That's true, but Dunn's struggles with the Sox are still nothing short of stunning. The idea that SABR folks think that stats alone can 100% predict the future is another one of these ridiculous strawmen arguments anti-SABR people make to try and justify their old school methods. Past performance is never a guarantee of future performance, but the question is which way is better? Even if you hated Dunn and don't think his approach to baseball is good, I would wager to bet that anyone who relies solely on the eye test would be stunned to know that in nearly 300 games with the Sox, Dunn's slash line is .179/.307/.377.

And the drop in numbers coincides with Dunn signing his big contract. It also coincides with going to a team that was supposed to be his first true contender. It also corresponds with him going to the American League and DHing regular for the first time and appendicitis. Indeed Dunn's numbers were historically bad. But free-agency baseball is full of players who sign big contracts after great years and never come approach their numbers after they get their big contract, going back to Richie Zisk and Oscar Gamble, two 30-home run hitters who played home games in Old Comiskey, left as free agents and never came anywhere near 30-home run seasons again.

Maybe Dunn's contract has nothing to do with him being so bad at baseball (although I would love to see him turn it around), but many of us have to wonder with so many players underachieving after signing free-agent contracts if Dunn were in a contract year and playing for money and not just to win if he would have had such a dismal second year with the White Sox. If a 1970s Harry Caray were calling last season's White Sox games, how do you think he would have treated Adam Dunn, shattering the AL strikeout record while constantly failing with runners in scoring position in the thick of a diviison race?

When you sign a free agent, you want him to have a strong will to win because they are no longer playing for money.

Stanley
04-26-2013, 03:15 PM
Remember when Ricciardi called out Dunn? "Do you know the guy doesn't really like baseball that much?" "Do you know the guy doesn't have a passion to play the game that much?"

It's interesting to watch Dunn flop while Alex Rios, another Blue Jays castoff has done nothing but do and say the right things for the past 2 years, and perform pretty well off and on before that. Watch Rios embracing #TWTW on Twitter and read recent interviews with him. He talks about being a changed man basically, and how that positively affects his baseball career.

kittle42
04-26-2013, 03:20 PM
When you sign a free agent, you want him to have a strong will to win because they are no longer playing for money.

A strong will to personally succeed would be enough for me. A will for team success is even better. You can find many a free agent who has continued to be wonderfully successful after a big contract. Adam Dunn was never considered a headcase. He played on sucky teams, as well.

DSpivack
04-26-2013, 03:44 PM
A strong will to personally succeed would be enough for me. A will for team success is even better. You can find many a free agent who has continued to be wonderfully successful after a big contract. Adam Dunn was never considered a headcase. He played on sucky teams, as well.

Paul Konerko and Jake Peavy come to mind, though they didn't change teams.

Harry Chappas
04-26-2013, 03:50 PM
Seems like this thread is chock full o' straw men. Other than maybe - maybe - Billy Beane, are there any GMs that have ever remotely suggested that the human element should be removed entirely from scouting/player analysis?

I'd be shocked if Hahn doesn't have his own stat-heads pouring over data as I type this.

Every front office is using Sabermetrics to some extent.

So really, this boils down to the fact that Hawk - an announcer who doesn't have any input in scouting/drafting - hates numbers. What's the big deal? It's idiotic but it doesn't impact the Sox in any way other than it's mildly embarrassing.

amsteel
04-26-2013, 03:54 PM
Is this a joke? Look at Adam Dunn's Numbers throughout his career before the Sox, he was one of the most consistent hitters in all of baseball. Every year was about 260-40-100-900.

He didn't start seeing the extreme shift in almost every AB until he came to the Sox. The way he hits, that's probably 30-50 BA points right there.

That doesn't account for the power numbers, though.

I'd much rather have my team posses TATW, the ability to win, than TWTW.

doublem23
04-26-2013, 04:10 PM
When you sign a free agent, you want him to have a strong will to win because they are no longer playing for money.

This isn't the ****ing company beer league softball team, this is the Major Leagues. These guys are the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of people in their field. They have overcome odds greater than anything probably any of us can even imagine. The idea that a guy with no will to succeed could have appeared in 1,500 MLB games before coming to Chicago is utterly laughable.

Domeshot17
04-26-2013, 04:22 PM
He didn't start seeing the extreme shift in almost every AB until he came to the Sox. The way he hits, that's probably 30-50 BA points right there.

That doesn't account for the power numbers, though.

I'd much rather have my team posses TATW, the ability to win, than TWTW.

Well yes and no, but the shift has been going on for a long time. Back when Travis Hafner was good, he faced a shift, David Ortiz shift, Giambi.

And the truth is, the Shift is a result of..... BUM BUM BUM..... Stats... Spray Charts showing where hitters hit the ball.

There was a debate on the radio the other day how hitters who make hard outs into the shift don't have bad luck, they have a stubborness and inability to learn to hit the other way. Its like in basketball, when teams realized Shaq shoots 70% inside the paint, and 40% from the free throw line, so just keep fouling him. Well, Shaq was not unlucky, he just did not learn to make free throws.

asindc
04-26-2013, 04:22 PM
This isn't the ****ing company beer league softball team, this is the Major Leagues. These guys are the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of people in their field. They have overcome odds greater than anything probably any of us can even imagine. The idea that a guy with no will to succeed could have appeared in 1,500 MLB games before coming to Chicago is utterly laughable.

I think he is referring to a WTW relative to the competition.

TDog
04-26-2013, 04:26 PM
A strong will to personally succeed would be enough for me. A will for team success is even better. You can find many a free agent who has continued to be wonderfully successful after a big contract. Adam Dunn was never considered a headcase. He played on sucky teams, as well.

There are players with stronger wills to win who do well after signing big contracts. I don't know if anyone has figured out who they will be based on their pre-free agency numbers. But if your numbers are solid (I would argue, have argued that Dunn's high strikeouts were a red flag, but many disagree so this discussion assumes Dunn's numbers were solid) on non-contending teams and you fail miserably for multiple seasons after going to a team expected to contend, you run the risk of being accused of not having the will to win.

I don't see where the controversey is. This isn't some archaic concept from a man stuck in the past. This mainstream thought among people who follow and cover sports. As much as I dislike Ken Harrelson, I find myself defending him. The only reason this is being debated here is that he seems to have insulted some sort of sabermetric dogma.

CoopaLoop
04-26-2013, 04:46 PM
I think seeing TWTW all over the place the rest of the season is going to make me want kill my self. Thankfully I have a strong TWTL

kittle42
04-26-2013, 05:34 PM
I don't see where the controversey is. This isn't some archaic concept from a man stuck in the past. This mainstream thought among people who follow and cover sports. As much as I dislike Ken Harrelson, I find myself defending him. The only reason this is being debated here is that he seems to have insulted some sort of sabermetric dogma.

It is less his opinion than the way he presents it (and that it is representative of the Sox) that is embarrassing.

As for free agents, it is much easier to remember the busts than the successes. Also, a drop in skill, even if steep, does not necessarily show laziness and no "will to win." It might just show a drop in skill. This will to win stuff sounds like more of the "no heart" etc. junk that we will eventually see this season from the usual crowd.

Over By There
04-26-2013, 05:42 PM
I think some of you need to lighten up. Hawk is costing the White Sox fans? "TWTW" makes you want to kill yourself? Jesus.

I don't necessarily agree with Hawk, but I think it's little more than a harmless sideshow. Personally, harmless sideshows are one of the things I find endearing about my beloved Sox. I mean, this is a team that wore freaking shorts on the baseball diamond. Imagine the horror at WSI - oh God, people will think we're fools!

I kind of like that the Sox are rich in tradition and stories, and not some inert, sterile sports franchise. While I'm not always a huge fan of Hawk on the air, I think he's just another part of the pastiche that future Sox fans will look back upon fondly. So I'm fine with Hawk, and I'm fine with the club having a little good-natured fun with "TWTW."

KingXerxes
04-26-2013, 05:51 PM
Hawk is costing the White Sox fans?"

Of that I have no doubt.

RKMeibalane
04-26-2013, 06:35 PM
Of that I have no doubt.

I think seeing TWTW all over the place the rest of the season is going to make me want kill my self. Thankfully I have a strong TWTL

:facepalm:

Lip Man 1
04-26-2013, 08:15 PM
Dome:

I've interviewed Rick personally and he's said he believes in both systems, new school (stats) and old school (eyeball / scouts).

Kittle:

83 wins in a season is better than 73 to me in my book. Again, for the seemingly millionth time that doesn't mean I'm satisfied if the Sox win 82-83-85 games. OK?

Is that perfectly clear to you right now?

Good.

Bottom line... if the team is going to have a mediocre season I'd at least like them to win more than they lose. What's so hard about that to understand?

Lip

kittle42
04-26-2013, 09:27 PM
I kind of like that the Sox are rich in tradition and stories, and not some inert, sterile sports franchise.

I hate to tell you that most people think the Sox are a boring, stale franchise playing in a boring, stale stadium. We're the exceptions. People think of the Sox like I think of, say, Toronto.

kittle42
04-26-2013, 09:29 PM
Is that perfectly clear to you right now?

Lip

To quote The Dude, "I'm sorry, I wasn't listening."

Domeshot17
04-26-2013, 11:01 PM
I think some of you need to lighten up. Hawk is costing the White Sox fans? "TWTW" makes you want to kill yourself? Jesus.

I don't necessarily agree with Hawk, but I think it's little more than a harmless sideshow. Personally, harmless sideshows are one of the things I find endearing about my beloved Sox. I mean, this is a team that wore freaking shorts on the baseball diamond. Imagine the horror at WSI - oh God, people will think we're fools!

I kind of like that the Sox are rich in tradition and stories, and not some inert, sterile sports franchise. While I'm not always a huge fan of Hawk on the air, I think he's just another part of the pastiche that future Sox fans will look back upon fondly. So I'm fine with Hawk, and I'm fine with the club having a little good-natured fun with "TWTW."

Thats cool if you want the Sox to be this comedic, dorky sideshow of a team. For me, I would like to see the market of fans grow, and Hawk is not helping that. Hawk Harrelson can make it embarrassing to be a Sox fan. It is time for him to hang it up.

Boondock Saint
04-26-2013, 11:10 PM
Thats cool if you want the Sox to be this comedic, dorky sideshow of a team. For me, I would like to see the market of fans grow, and Hawk is not helping that. Hawk Harrelson can make it embarrassing to be a Sox fan. It is time for him to hang it up.

Agreed. The Sox can do much better than him.

TaylorStSox
04-27-2013, 12:05 AM
The only 2 things I have to say about Dunn and Rios are that 1. 95% of the baseball world thought we got excellent value in Dunn. After he signed, many people thought we got a discount. Nobody could ever have predicted such a sharp decline. 2. Lots of posters should be ashamed of the things they said about Rios, but they'll never admit it.

asindc
04-27-2013, 05:42 AM
Thats cool if you want the Sox to be this comedic, dorky sideshow of a team. For me, I would like to see the market of fans grow, and Hawk is not helping that. Hawk Harrelson can make it embarrassing to be a Sox fan. It is time for him to hang it up.

He's not hurting it, either, despite your embarrassment. I can tell you that at least among the baseball fans I know here in DC that they think of Hawk as nothing more than an amusing old timer. In fact, the worst thing said about him is that he is a blatant homer, but that is also said about many other announcers. I truly don't get the "we should be ashamed" reaction to this. So he doesn't like advanced metrics, so what? He is certainly not the only one working in baseball today with that viewpoint. By the way, I was at the Nats game last night sitting among people who know me as a Sox fan from having attended several previous games. No one mentioned it to me, and believe me, they would have if they thought they could give me a hard time about it.

I have no doubt that the number of people who equate his opinion with somehow undermining Rick Hahn could comfortably fit in an elevator. I am even more certain that Hahn would not be among the group standing in that elevator. In fact, if Hahn did publicly state, for some bizarre reason, that Hawk's comments undermined his ability as GM, I would be embarrassed... about the notion that our GM could allow such meaningless comments from Hawk to affect him at all.

asindc
04-27-2013, 05:45 AM
I think some of you need to lighten up. Hawk is costing the White Sox fans? "TWTW" makes you want to kill yourself? Jesus.

I don't necessarily agree with Hawk, but I think it's little more than a harmless sideshow. Personally, harmless sideshows are one of the things I find endearing about my beloved Sox. I mean, this is a team that wore freaking shorts on the baseball diamond. Imagine the horror at WSI - oh God, people will think we're fools!

I kind of like that the Sox are rich in tradition and stories, and not some inert, sterile sports franchise. While I'm not always a huge fan of Hawk on the air, I think he's just another part of the pastiche that future Sox fans will look back upon fondly. So I'm fine with Hawk, and I'm fine with the club having a little good-natured fun with "TWTW."

Indeed.

SephClone89
04-27-2013, 07:05 AM
The only 2 things I have to say about Dunn and Rios are that 1. 95% of the baseball world thought we got excellent value in Dunn. After he signed, many people thought we got a discount. Nobody could ever have predicted such a sharp decline. 2. Lots of posters should be ashamed of the things they said about Rios, but they'll never admit it.

I sure don't miss the racially tinged "Rios and Dunn are awful, but at least Dunn tries!" comments from 2011...

soltrain21
04-27-2013, 08:40 AM
I sure don't miss the racially tinged "Rios and Dunn are awful, but at least Dunn tries!" comments from 2011...

So what you are saying is Dunn had TWTW? Why were his results so bad then?!?!?!

SephClone89
04-27-2013, 08:56 AM
Again, this would be terrible regardless, but the fact that the Sox are embracing it as such a listless team thus far in 2013 is just inexcusable and boneheaded.

Brian26
04-27-2013, 08:57 AM
I sure don't miss the racially tinged "Rios and Dunn are awful, but at least Dunn tries!" comments from 2011...

Huh, what?

If I see a guy not running out a ball to first base or dropping easy flyballs in rightfield because he refused to pull his sunglasses off his hat, I am probably going to call him on it. Has nothing to do with his skin color. I would say the same thing about Adam Dunn in 2011, but since he struck out about 50% of the time he came to the plate, "running balls out" was not really an issue.

Tread carefully on those kind of statements.

doublem23
04-27-2013, 09:39 AM
I think some of you need to lighten up. Hawk is costing the White Sox fans?

I don't have any doubt about that. I sometimes don't watch games because I don't want to listen to Hawk ramble on. And I like the Sox. I can't imagine what it must be like for someone who doesn't care about the team.

SephClone89
04-27-2013, 09:51 AM
I don't have any doubt about that. I sometimes don't watch games because I don't want to listen to Hawk ramble on. And I like the Sox. I can't imagine what it must be like for someone who doesn't care about the team.

Bingo.One of the reasons I go to as many games as I do is because it means I can watch the Sox without having to deal with either of the broadcast booths. And now especially since I have mlb.tv I find myself flipping to other games from the Sox game way more frequently than I would with a Hawkless broadcast.

soxnut1018
04-27-2013, 11:09 AM
Bingo.One of the reasons I go to as many games as I do is because it means I can watch the Sox without having to deal with either of the broadcast booths. And now especially since I have mlb.tv I find myself flipping to other games from the Sox game way more frequently than I would with a Hawkless broadcast.

Hawk has actually caused me to tune in to Ed and DJ almost exclusively. I do not like Ed and DJ.

BRDSR
04-27-2013, 07:47 PM
Wow...this thread has taken off. Two thoughts:

1) Hawk Harrelson is schtick...all this debate is just plays into the schtick. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Ken Harrelson doesn't even 100% believe the B.S. spouted by Hawk Harrelson.

2) I was a Hawk fan for a long time, but starting with a few years ago, I'm indifferent at best. His schtick now seems to overshadow any value he used to offer viewers of White Sox games. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the White Sox are one of only two teams that can be seen regularly (at least once a week) by the entire nation on a non-cable channel (the Cubs being the other). They need to exploit that exposure! If even longtime die hard Sox fans are only indifferent about Hawk, the Sox are wasting an opportunity.

Count me as a proponent of getting a new play by play guy. Hawk will always have a special place in my heart, but it's time for a change.

DSpivack
04-27-2013, 07:52 PM
Wow...this thread has taken off. Two thoughts:

1) Hawk Harrelson is schtick...all this debate is just plays into the schtick. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Ken Harrelson doesn't even 100% believe the B.S. spouted by Hawk Harrelson.

2) I was a Hawk fan for a long time, but starting with a few years ago, I'm indifferent at best. His schtick now seems to overshadow any value he used to offer viewers of White Sox games. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the White Sox are one of only two teams that can be seen regularly (at least once a week) by the entire nation on a non-cable channel (the Cubs being the other). They need to exploit that exposure! If even longtime die hard Sox fans are only indifferent about Hawk, the Sox are wasting an opportunity.

Count me as a proponent of getting a new play by play guy. Hawk will always have a special place in my heart, but it's time for a change.

I'm not sure how true this is anymore. Rare is the Sox game nowadays that is even on WGN. And of those, I'm not sure how many, if any, are on the Superstation. Perhaps an out-of-town WSIer can clarify?

LITTLE NELL
04-27-2013, 08:03 PM
I'm not sure how true this is anymore. Rare is the Sox game nowadays that is even on WGN. And of those, I'm not sure how many, if any, are on the Superstation. Perhaps an out-of-town WSIer can clarify?

I believe every game that WGN televises we get to see here in Florida. I check the schedule every year and I can't remember any WGN games not shown. Doing a quick count it looks like 30 games on WGN this year.

BRDSR
04-27-2013, 08:23 PM
I believe every game that WGN televises we get to see here in Florida. I check the schedule every year and I can't remember any WGN games not shown. Doing a quick count it looks like 30 games on WGN this year.

Agreed...roughly one per week here in AZ.

DSpivack
04-27-2013, 08:28 PM
I believe every game that WGN televises we get to see here in Florida. I check the schedule every year and I can't remember any WGN games not shown. Doing a quick count it looks like 30 games on WGN this year.

Agreed...roughly one per week here in AZ.

30? Not bad.

asindc
04-27-2013, 08:34 PM
I'm not sure how true this is anymore. Rare is the Sox game nowadays that is even on WGN. And of those, I'm not sure how many, if any, are on the Superstation. Perhaps an out-of-town WSIer can clarify?

At least one weekend game each week on the Superstation.

Lip Man 1
04-27-2013, 11:37 PM
Spivak:

The Sox are not blacked out anyplace in the nation when on the Superstation.

My schedule has 23 games on WGN Superstation this year.

Lip

doublem23
04-27-2013, 11:41 PM
I'm not sure how true this is anymore. Rare is the Sox game nowadays that is even on WGN. And of those, I'm not sure how many, if any, are on the Superstation. Perhaps an out-of-town WSIer can clarify?

I'm pretty sure every WGN game is also carried on the Superstation

Lip Man 1
04-28-2013, 12:27 AM
That's correct any local Sox game on WGN is also shown on WGN America.

Lip

kittle42
04-28-2013, 10:21 AM
Huh, what?

If I see a guy not running out a ball to first base or dropping easy flyballs in rightfield because he refused to pull his sunglasses off his hat, I am probably going to call him on it. Has nothing to do with his skin color. I would say the same thing about Adam Dunn in 2011, but since he struck out about 50% of the time he came to the plate, "running balls out" was not really an issue.

Tread carefully on those kind of statements.

Seriously. If there is one area where most people don't even notice race, it's pro sports.

NOTE: I am not pretending there have not been racial incidents.

soxnut1018
04-28-2013, 11:00 AM
Seriously. If there is one area where most people don't even notice race, it's pro sports.

NOTE: I am not pretending there have not been racial incidents.

I strongly disagree with this. Although my reason why probably belongs at PI.

dickallen15
04-28-2013, 11:23 AM
I don't have any doubt about that. I sometimes don't watch games because I don't want to listen to Hawk ramble on. And I like the Sox. I can't imagine what it must be like for someone who doesn't care about the team.

Someone who doesn't care about the team probably doesn't watch the games anyway.

Milw
04-28-2013, 12:20 PM
I strongly disagree with this. Although my reason why probably belongs at PI.
I disagree also. Nevertheless, people should be able to call out lollygaggers for lollygagging without fear of being called racist.

Signed,

A White Guy Who Used To Boo Alex Rios And Who Still Boos Adam Dunn

WhiteSox5187
04-28-2013, 12:46 PM
I disagree also. Nevertheless, people should be able to call out lollygaggers for lollygagging without fear of being called racist.

Signed,

A White Guy Who Used To Boo Alex Rios And Who Still Boos Adam Dunn

I thought that at the end of 2011 it was clear that Rios was frustrated. I remember in August and September he was throwing his bat and smashing things in the dugout. Earlier in the year it did look like he was dogging it a bit, but by the end of the year it was clear that he cared and was just frustrated as all hell.

Hitmen77
04-29-2013, 09:02 AM
I'm no big fan of Hawk anymore, but I kind of like how "The Will To Win" has caught on. If the team were any good (which it isn't), something like this could catch on like "Winning Ugly" did thanks to Doug Rader. It's certainly better than the lame-o "MakeAnImpact" official slogan that Sox marketing came up with.

The only 2 things I have to say about Dunn and Rios are that 1. 95% of the baseball world thought we got excellent value in Dunn. After he signed, many people thought we got a discount. Nobody could ever have predicted such a sharp decline. 2. Lots of posters should be ashamed of the things they said about Rios, but they'll never admit it.

When I first read this, I honestly though you were saying "1.95% of the baseball world". :tongue:


I disagree also. Nevertheless, people should be able to call out lollygaggers for lollygagging without fear of being called racist.

Signed,

A White Guy Who Used To Boo Alex Rios And Who Still Boos Adam Dunn

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSeyhznUQg6MEkZRJOlVZU3Z6SEt790 Y6Rrv6y08hBxDYavMnjsAhttp://www.jandjcards.com/store/images/Deion%20Sanders.jpg

Damn straight.