PDA

View Full Version : HE SAID WHAT? (Will Carroll bashes KW/OG to defen the unemployed Stathead GMs)


jabrch
11-05-2005, 10:43 AM
http://thejuice.baseballtoaster.com/archives/282895.html#comments

People will mark the day that the White Sox won the World Series as the beginning of the backlash, though it began at the tipping point the other way. The sabermetric revolution reached the masses -- and the ears of many owners for the first time - with Moneyball. Of course, it started years and years before. Moneyball begat The Numbers Game by Alan Schwarz, at least in the eyes of the public, tho it's Moneyball that became shorthand. Sabermetrics was a long, meaningless word with difficult spelling and to date, I'm not sure it's ever been uttered on ESPN without being attached to Moneyball.


No, it is not a "long meaningless word with difficult spelling. You arrogant bombastic pontificating jerkoff. Just because someone thinks your theology doesn't add up, doesn't mean they are too dumb to understand it. You prick.
As Beane's philosophy spread apostle-like (or more accurately, restarting a tradition of coaches such as Bear Bryant, Bill Walsh, and Vince Lombardi, as well as Paul Richards) to Toronto, Boston, and Los Angeles, as well as other outposts like Cleveland, Colorado, and Texas, the great story of Moneyball fast became legend. Legend, as we all know, trumps fact every time. The legend threatened a tobacco-stained oligarchy because they felt threatened, not that they were.

Here's another one of my favorite piles of BP horsecrap. The oligarchy didn't feel threatened. They know better. They know that things like this don't have staying power, and that it is a flavor of the month. They love the game too much to watch it taken over by people who don't know it well enough to do such demanding jobs. Boston played hardball with Theo since Luccino really didn't care at the end of the day. The Dodgers fired Boy Blunder. Ricardi is next to go - probably after next year. Some day this will all catch up to Beane - but the Oakland fans love his personality - so he will probably he more staying power than his boys did. And comparing Billy Beane to Bryant and Lombardi shows that you are not only ignorant about baseball, but about football as well.
Yet somehow, "fat scout" - the man that found Tim Hudson - was treated differently. Michael Lewis' insensitive nom de anon burned people.

Another highbrow prick writing latin into his BP articles - that's really cool.

Billy Beane was that subject and his larger than life persona in and out of the inner circles allowed Lewis to write life writ big. Lewis wrote a story that became a legend, the goal of every writer, but Beane never set out to be a story.

Bullcrap. If Billy Beane didn't want the publicity, he wouldn't ever have put his franchise's innerworkings, including his insults hurled at the World Series Champion GM, in the public eye. He granted Lewis near unlimited access. He got what he wanted out of it.


Caught a rung below in the legend was Paul DePodesta. In the story, the former Harvard football player came off as a human laptop, the computer geek, the 98-lb weakling that would use a spreadsheet and Harvard education to get back at the bullies that had taken his lunch money.


OMG - this is rich… Yes, he was a "Football Player" He walked on to Harvard and was a reserve WR at 5'10 and 160 lbs. No, he wasn't a 98 lb weakling - but he was a 160lb weakling. Put it this way - "Football Player" or not I've met VoodooChile and I'd put my money on him in a brawl vs Big Tough Depo… He is a geek with a spreadsheet. At Harvard those are a dime a dozen. And by the way, one of the main reasons he was fired was his poor interpersonal skills. I know that doesn't fit on a spreadsheet either, but it is a critical skill in managing any sort of a business, and one that your geek with a laptop was completely incapable of.

Once the story was out - the negative things about Kenny Williams especially and the seeming disregard for scouting - the backlash began


I wonder if Beane regrets allowing Lewis to write such tripe about a fairly well respected (at that time) GM who is now the GM of the World Champion Chicago White Sox. (Typing that never gets old!!!!)

There have been books and columns and insane, fact-ignoring rants in the years since Moneyball came out


Insane? Fact-ignoring? Sounds like BP to me. To them, anything not generated by their spreadsheets is probably not fact. That is insane.

and became the descriptive term for using business-based methodology in baseball.


Wrong again - Moneyball is not the description for using "business-based methodology". It is the description for IGNORING the truths about the game that have been fact since Doubleday and making all your assumptions based on information overly regressed in your spreadsheet.

Most have some basis in friendship - writers protect their friends and more importantly their sources.

Still wrong. Most of the critics come not from writers, but from real baseball fans.

Don't get me wrong - it's a phenomenal book.

Not really.

So it's really the book, or the idea of the book, and not the Kenny Williams-Ozzie Guillen Series win that started the backlash.

Is this a shot to discredit KW/OG? From BP? A cheap shot at the World Series Champs? (Again - I could type that ALL DAY)

We'll see it in retrospect, but history might say it was the sweep.

TRUE

It might look back and say that "Moneyball never won," either in the playoffs or in front offices.

TRUE

Days after the win, Theo Epstein is unsigned, Josh Byrnes moves to Arizona, and DePodesta is out of a job, stabbed by the oldest of the old school, Tommy Lasorda.

Actually, a few more days later, Oopstein is GONE. Depodesta is GONE. And Byrnes is stuck in Arizona. As far as Tommy, he didn't STAB anyone. He'd do it to Depodesta's face. He did what he and McCourt believe is in the best interest of the franchise - fired a guy who took a team Danny Evans built very well and destroyed it, meanwhile handcuffing it to crappy contracts with several players.

Tampa is an interesting situation,

Yeah, where all they could find is 2 sub-30 year old kids to run the team? I can't wait!!!! There is nothing interesting about Tampa at all, except that they have lots of talent that the new teenage GMs are going to have to trade to real baseball teams once they finish their social studies homework.

but there seems to be a creeping old-school movement, perhaps a current, where the old boys network is tightening up the ship and getting ready to use the White Sox as their next weapon of choice. "See, we run! We're a team, with chemistry and makeup!" they'll say. "No numbers running this team," they'll say, ignoring Dan Fabian, the Sox information director. A lack of self-awareness, of snap judgements as fast as Guillen's mouth will be the central theme.


Nobody - NOBODY is saying "no numbers" You bombastic nincompoop. People are saying that there is more to baseball than the junk out of your laptop, like what actually happens on the field of play.

Continued...

jabrch
11-05-2005, 10:43 AM
What we don't see - and we've looked - is a design, a masterplan. I'll leave that analysis to the analysts, but a cursory look makes it seem almost like the team equivalent of the 'best available athlete' draft strategy.

Are you ****ting me? Are you ****ting me? That's the dumbest piece of tripe yet. The masterplan is simple. Find guys who can play defense. Find guys who can throw strikes. Find guys who can get on base and then wreak havoc at the top of the order. Put power in the middle, and have your bottom of the order strong enough to score runs and support your team. Are you ****ting me? That's the dumbest statement you have ever made Joe - and trust me - it has much competition.

Freddy Garcia was a happy accident, the near-relative of the manager that came available.

OMG…It was not a "happy accident". You freaking forgetfully ignorant prick. It was a calculated deal to get a #2 starter because the Sox wanted to have a team with 5 solid starters in 2005. Getting Garcia before he was a FA, and then locking him down, was no accident. It was part of the masterplan that you are too dumb to see.

At the time, the dollars and prospects seemed high. Russell Ortiz and Kris Benson changed the contract's relative value while Jeremy Reed was simply overrated by statheads. [/QUOTE]

No, Ortiz and Benson were a part of the trends and patterns. KW was smart enough to see that. You and your ilk were not. Not then, and not today. KW knew #2 starters would be getting 8-10mm, so he acquired Freddy and locked him down at market value before the Mets, Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers, D-Back got a chance to bid him up like they did to Ortiz and Benson. And as far as Reed goes, a bird in the hand is worth a lot more than a slappy one or two dimensional OF, certainly when you have an OF rich farm system.

[QUOTE]Add a castoff catcher with a whiff of BALCO on him,

Screw you…I never ONCE heard AJs name mentioned in conjunction with steroids until just now. That's not only unprofessional (no surprise), but it is a sign of a person with a complete lack of journalistic integrity.

a waiver bait pitcher or two, and some underachieving inhouse players. Simmer, stir, and attempt not to be distracted by the one great player the team has during a cameo appearance. Six months later, World Series. That's hardly the recipe.

Actually, it is a recipie. Pitching, Defense, and guys who fill very exact roles within a lineup (speed at the top, power in the middle, production at the bottom, and defense throughout) a simple, age old recipie. Beats the hell out of trying to walk your way to a WS - a recipie that has proven futile in Oakland, Toronto and LA, and only pseudo-successful when seen with the Red Sox $150MMpayroll overlayed to it.

It's the potato chip plan, a term I learned in the insurance industry. The legend goes that Cornelius Vanderbilt liked his french fries thin - very thin. He sent back a set and a peeved chef shaved them as thin as paper, fried them up and sent them out as a "screw you" to the robber baron ... who loved them, building a snack industry a century later. Happy accidents happen and like Seinfeld says, cinnamon seems to always be the secret ingredient. The White Sox might have some grand plan on a white board inside US Cellular. There might be a formula that Dan Fabian found. Don Cooper might be the next Leo Mazzone. Ozzie Guillen could be the next Casey Stengel (and is about as understandable at times.) Mark Buehrle could be the next Greg Maddux and Jon Garland could be the next Tom Glavine, rattling off wins for the better part of a decade.
And like luck, potato chips leave a residue behind.

YOU ARE STUPID - you don't even get what went on at USCF this year. That's the funny park.

The White Sox are a broken bottle, the weapon of opportunity, not of choice. They'll just as soon bludgeon the Yankees and Red Sox with their own checkbooks.

YOU ARE STUPID - The Sox did not try to outspend the Yanks. Our payroll was about 75mm. We did it by putting together a team of players each with a specific role on the field, rather than trying to find 9 guys who all do the exact same things. We had specialists at the front, the middle, and the back of the lineup. That's not trying to bludgeon anyone with a checkbook.

So watch out. With DePodesta's firing and the upcoming moves, we're likely to see the backlash in full effect. Smile, duck your head, and try not to get too much of it on you.

"try not to get too much of it on you"? You really are a selfrighteous jerk.

The road of evolution is longer than that of revolution, but much more lasting.


So you and your ideas are "evolution"? I don't think so. I think they will go down as short lived ideas that were debunked as being nothing more than unproven hypothesis.

RallyBowl
11-05-2005, 11:00 AM
Some of the most infuriating **** I have ever read. When will it all end? After the Repeat? After the Three- peat? **** all of these brain dead *******s. We all know they are just trying to find any way they can to justify their worthless predictions before and during the season. These dickless wonders can analyze and ask all the questions they want to. But there is only 1 answer-

WORLD CHAMPIONS.

Tragg
11-05-2005, 11:25 AM
jabrch, I confess that I bought a 1 month sub to BP for 4.95, just for the laughs. Where is this article? I missed it. If you would, please post a date. Thanks.

jdm2662
11-05-2005, 11:27 AM
Thanks again jabrch. This was a good form of entertainment to start my morning.

Oh yeah, Chicago White Sox 2005 World Series Champions.

That never gets old...

It's Time
11-05-2005, 11:29 AM
Those of you who are "content" win one championship, do you still feel that way? Not me and I never will be. This lack of respect is just on a national level. As I said before, should the cubs ever win a ****ing title, the White Sox will be pushed aside again in our own city.

One is great but when you live in Chicago, it's not enough. ****!

voodoochile
11-05-2005, 11:45 AM
"We're not wrong, we're just smarter than all of you and the Sox got lucky. Watch it in the coming seasons. We'll rise to the top and smite all the unbelievers. Billy is God and I am his disciple. KW is lucky, Ozzie is a dummy with an odd sounding accent and the pitching will surely implode next season or even sooner. My numbers are the ultimate description of the game and are the only way to the truth and the light. My numbers, my beautiful, beautiful numbers. Anyone want to hear about VORP? Please let me tell you about VORP. It's the most beatutiful thing I've ever seen."

You left off bigot, Jabarch...

Nice to read that I can kick some Harvard football player's ass. Now where is Michael McCaskey?:tongue:

Deuce
11-05-2005, 12:26 PM
Those of you who are "content" win one championship, do you still feel that way? Not me and I never will be. This lack of respect is just on a national level.
Yes. I'm not going to allow this mediot to write my book on the 2005 White Sox. We went wire to wire. We lost one game throughout the entire playoffs. We swept the World Series. This is the moutaintop, and yet we get no respect. What am I supposed to do, cry? Guess what, we could win 3 championships in a row and not get respect. **** respect. I wanted the ring. We got the ring. Everything else is butter.

As I said before, should the cubs ever win a ****ing title, the White Sox will be pushed aside again in our own city.
The Cubs are irrelevant. They are a side note. We are the champions. What happens next year does not change the now, unless you let it.

One is great but when you live in Chicago, it not enough. ****!
Whatever. Last year, we would have cut off an appendage for a championship. Now, after we finally got one (without sacrificing fingers and toes), it's not enough?!?! Grow up.

Deuce

hose
11-05-2005, 12:31 PM
Outside of making me laugh this Sheehan character is in the wrong field. He should be writing for a political party or one of the national news outlets. Talk about an axe to grind, scheesh!!

The Sheehan's and the Mariotti's of the world are like water on a ducks back to me. Both these guys were proven wrong by KW/Ozzie and the 2005 World Champion Chicago White Sox.

hose
11-05-2005, 12:37 PM
oh yeah almost forgot, keep up the good work jab.:bandance:

Banix12
11-05-2005, 01:36 PM
You Rock Jabrich.

Great point about the publicity the A's got out of Moneyball. That book raised the profile of that franchise to heights not seen since the bash brothers.

I expect this garbage out of Sheehan mostly because teams winning without his prescribed "recipie for winning" threatens his financial livelyhood. He makes his living selling his lousy books and BP subscriptions and if the sox or teams like the sox win it just makes him look foolish and might one day cut into his bottom line.

Hendu
11-05-2005, 02:02 PM
There have been books and columns and insane, fact-ignoring rants in the years since Moneyball came out

The White Sox only have an 88% chance of winning the AL Central...after they had already won it...because some pythagorean formula said so? Now who's ignoring facts?

This entire article is an insane, fact-ignoring rant. The only fact that matters: Chicago White Sox, 2005 World Champions.

These are the same people that were in love with Jeremy Giambi and his high OBP. Some of them even suggested that his OBP would be valuable in the role of a leadoff hitter. Then the 2001 ALDS happens and Jeremy Giambi is exposed as a guy who can draw walks but can't play baseball (not to mention shooting steroids with his big brother). Then the statheads found a new fling with Mark Bellhorn, another high OBP guy, who had a horrible post-season in '04 despite one big homerun. Where is Mark Bellhorn now? The statheads need someone that they can write about in 2006 to show everyone how smart they are.

Chips
11-05-2005, 02:03 PM
Those of you who are "content" win one championship, do you still feel that way? Not me and I never will be. This lack of respect is just on a national level. As I said before, should the cubs ever win a ****ing title, the White Sox will be pushed aside again in our own city.

One is great but when you live in Chicago, it not enough. ****!

I really don't give a rat's ass if people in New York or Pennslyvannia or Kansas or Montana or California or Wisconsin respect the White Sox. **** em. We are the 2005 World Series Champions.

Fredsox
11-05-2005, 02:11 PM
I'm not too familiar with Sabermetrics other than what I've read on this board. I'm curious though, if you can boil baseball down to a set of statistics, how successful has BP been at predicting the World Series champion for the past 5-10 years?

In this decade we've had Chicago, Boston, Florida, the Angels, Arizona, and the Yankees win the brass ring. I'll bet that BP has not fared too well in predicting these outcomes.

If their "science" is built upon looking for common statistics AFTER the contest is over, then it's nothing more than knowing the winner after the race is over and bending statistics to fit the facts.

TommyJohn
11-05-2005, 02:47 PM
This is nothing. over at another website, some idiot has written an article
expsoing baseball's "dirty little secret" that mediocre teams have been winning
the World Series lately. he lumps the 2001 Diamondbacks, 2002 Angels, 2003
Marlins and 2005 White Sox in this crowd. Strangely, he skips the 2000 Yankees
(a mediocre champion if ever there was one) and the 2004 Red Sox. He then
trots out all his statistical mumbo-jumbo to back it up, and he found some
idiot blogger to agree with him.

You gotta admire the gall of these dip****s. They just will not admit that they
were wrong. If a champion emerges that defies all of their precious statistical
analysis, then it is an aberration. Not a good one, mind you, but a bad one.
I just can't get over the lack of respect, it's appalling.

The dude's name is John Shiffert. I looked him up on google and found a
picture of him. Sure enough, he looks like Mr. Peepers. Not that I'm Brad
Pitt.

Here was my response to Mr. Peepers: (although it is one of only three
responses, I put up two after I thought I lost the first one. I guess I
need to get a life as badly as Mr. Peepers) Anyway:


Ah, yes. The White Sox won the World Series. How could this have possibly happened? After all, didn't we here pronounce them cursed forever,
suffering the fate that they and their fans deserve for fixing the World Series last year? (OK, it was 1919, but with the way everyone talks about it, it may as well have been last year.) How did this happen? (lip begins to quiver)How could they possibly have done what us supernerds pronounced in all our infinite wisdom would never, ever happen? I know! We'll chalk it up to mediocrity! That's it! We'll be damned before we give an ounce of credit to a team that fixed last year's World Series!

Such is the life of a White Sox fan. Lose, and the team is disdained as mediocre. Win, and they are disdained as mediocre. When will it end? I mean, I'm sorry all of us White Sox fans fixed the World Series. I'm sorry that Paul Konerko plays the same position as Chick Gandil. I'm sorry that Scott Podsednik plays the same field as Shoeless Joe. I'm sorry that eight men fixed a series and are now dead. I'm so, so sorry. Please forgive ALLLLL of us for the horrible sins and crimes we committed against you.

I notice that you include the 2002 Anaheim Angels in your list. They have gone on to win a couple of division titles since 2002. Mediocre? They beat the Yankees in round one that year! And they have been a 90 win contender ever since! That's mediocrity?

The 2003 Marlins beat the Yankkes in the World Series in 2003, after beating a 100 win team (SF) in the first round, then pulling off an incredible comeback against America's Team in round two (beating two pitchers that had been practically unbeatable in the months of August and September.)That's mediocre? Of course it is! At least in the mind of an East Coast baseball supergeek.

Speaking of which, where are the 2000 Yankees and 2004 Red Sox on your list? Why aren't they there? What is this bull? You want to tell me that the 2000 Yankees weren't mediocre? 87-74, 3-15 in their final 18 games? And spare me the jazz about 1998-99. The 2000 Yankees looked nothing like those two teams. Why aren't the 87-74 Yankees there? Does this have something to do with their VORP, RISP, DIP, DOP, and DORK?

And what of the 2004 Red Sox? Ah, they had a miracle comeback against the Greatest Team of All Time, (the same team that Florida beat the previous year) so they don't count. How could they? How can we deny all those long suffering Boston faithful one measly little title in 86 years? How monstrous would that be? We aren't cruel! They weren't mediocre! They were blessed!

I wonder. If the 2003 Cubs, with their 88-74 record had gotten to the World Series and won, would they make your list? Or do they score points with you merely for being the Cubbies, who have also had such suffering, suffering, suffering fans?

Luck only gets you so far. It wins you only so many games. The 2005 White Sox were a very good team. They had one of the best rotations and bullpens in the league, and they delivered in the playoffs when it counted. Even against those unmediocre Red Sox! Yes, you could give me all the bull you want about no Schilling, no Pedro, and you would be correct. But they go through an entire season without Pedro, and with Schilling mostly hurt. They still manage to win 95 games. In the playoffs, they get wiped out by the Mediocre Sox, Three games to zero. ZIP. ZILCH. NONE. BLANK. They take a 4-0 lead in game 2, only to have the Mediocre Sox storm back and beat them. They load the bases with none out in game 3, and come up empty, with 2004 hero Johnny Damon striking out for the final out. They win 95 games and NONE in the postseason. Would you call that mediocre? Or are the charming Red Sox exempt from mediocre status?

The 2005 White Sox won when it counted. They had a rough August, then Cleveland caught fire and threatened to catch them, but the White Sox bucked up and shoved Cleveland behind them, then went 11-1 in the postseason. And isn't that what great teams do? Take advantage of the breaks? Win when it is most needed? Have their best players rise to the occasion? Mediocre teams don't win 99 games. They start out hot and fade, like the Baltimore Orioles. Mediocre teams don't lead wire-to-wire. Mediocre teams don't go 11-1 in the postseason. Mediocre teams don't have a team ERA close to the top of the league. Mediocre teams don't hit 200 home runs. Mediocre teams don't become the fifth team in baseball history to be in first place on Opening Day until the last game of the World Series. Mediocre teams don't join the company of the 1927 Yankees, 1955 Dodgers, 1984 Tigers and 1990 Reds in accomplishing this feat. And they did it all despite the stat nerds who used all of their knowledge of VORP, DORP, MORP, WHIP, FLIP, DIP, DORK, YORK, MORK to show how mediocre they were and how they weren't going anywhere. They did it all despite the fact that eight men in another time and place lost on purpose 86 years ago. They won it all despite the fact that several practioners of the holy religion of baseball, including Boob Costas and a writer on this site, pronounced that they would never, ever, ever, ever, EVER win again after 1919, and this was the just and deserved punishment from God and Mickey Mantle for their sins. They won it all despite not having to melt down the statue of Charles Comiskey, as some writer here suggested they MUST do in order to win the World Series again. They won it all and threw all those eggheads out of whack. "How could this happen when we said that it never would? How? I know! Let's chalk it up to mediocrity! That's a hell of a lot better than admitting we were wrong!"

Oh, I meant to say. I'm so sorry that the White Sox beat America's cuddly Red Sox three games to zip, zilch, zero to get there, but I can't help that. The better team simply won. Mediocrity is as mediocrity does. I'm speaking of the 2005 Red Sox, of course.

If the 2005 White Sox were mediocre, I'll take more of the same in the future. And if not? Well, those are the breaks. Can't win every year. Just ask the 2004 Red Sox, the only true-blue honest-to-Ted Williams World Champs of this decade!

Edit: when I wrote of "this site" and "here" I meant the site I was on,
not WSI, of course.

Flight #24
11-05-2005, 03:20 PM
Self-important rationalization of the highest order, with a paranoid/martyr complex thrown in. Note to Joe Sheehan & co: Sometimes people blindly following a doctrine because it's just not right, not because they're afraid of it or "can't handle the truth".

No one argues that stats have value. The argument is generally over the overuse of stats and minimizing the value of other approaches. Which is why a guy like KW, who makes sure that he's got all aspects/viewpoints involved in the decisionmaking process (including the stats side) will generally come out better in the long run than a guy who ignores or minimizes either the stats or traditional scouting approaches.

Call me when a primarily or all-stats driven team accomplishes something meaningful without also being far and away one of the top spenders in the game.

JorgeFabregas
11-05-2005, 03:26 PM
If medicore teams consistently win baseball's championship, it is time for baseball to change the rules so that final outcomes more accurately reflect the caliber of the respective teams. Here are some suggestions:
1. Runs are out, total bases are in. Baseball is too boring and low-scoring anyway. Now a walk really is the same as a single. All that moving runners over stuff only serves to decrease scoring.
2. As a consequence of rule number 1, pitchers are now to be judged based on WHIP and opposing batter OPS. ERA is out. Get out of jam? Here's a cookie. You shouldn't have been in one to begin with.
3. Defensive stats are too hard to qualify. Infielders now are only able to take a total of 5 steps on any play and outfielders, 10. This way we can measure defensive efficiency easily. Catch too many balls on your 7th and 8th step? Quit loafing it. If it only takes you two steps to make most plays, good work--you're the king of efficient movement!

SouthSide_HitMen
11-05-2005, 03:41 PM
"We're not wrong, we're just smarter than all of you and the Sox got lucky. Watch it in the coming seasons. We'll rise to the top and smite all the unbelievers. Billy is God and I am his disciple. KW is lucky, Ozzie is a dummy with an odd sounding accent and the pitching will surely implode next season or even sooner. My numbers are the ultimate description of the game and are the only way to the truth and the light. My numbers, my beautiful, beautiful numbers. Anyone want to hear about VORP? Please let me tell you about VORP. It's the most beatutiful thing I've ever seen."

You left off bigot, Jabarch...

Nice to read that I can kick some Harvard football player's ass. Now where is Michael McCaskey?:tongue:

Actually Jabarch is the bigot. BP Says so:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4579

ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS


Named Josh Byrnes general manager. [10/27] Although I generally like this move, there are questions as to whether or not this is really going to work all that well. Rumors that Byrnes is making less than scouting director Mike Rizzo certainly don't help but make me wonder if Byrnes was all over the idea of getting out of Boston as quickly as possible. However that plays out, Byrnes might be a closer match to J.P. Ricciardi than anyone else among the next gen GMs, which should inoculate him somewhat against the inevitable bigotry on the beat.

SO if you disagree with MoneyBall / BP you are a bigot according to this one. I usually do not defend the MSM but the reason they bash this bull**** is because it is bull****, not because they are bigots.

Nice to see how Arizona finds these people to be dispossable as GM Byrnes will earn less than the scouting director.

Baseball - Kermit
DePodesta, Little Theo - Cubbie Blue wearing bitches


:kermit

Who's your Daddy?

jabrch
11-05-2005, 04:08 PM
jabrch, I confess that I bought a 1 month sub to BP for 4.95, just for the laughs. Where is this article? I missed it. If you would, please post a date. Thanks.

I refuse to spend the $ on these guys - but I really am curious as to exactly what crap I am missing... (Not curious enough to spend the $4.95..but curious none-the-less.

Usually I copy the link also. Normally what I do is write these things when I take a break at work, e-mail them to myself, with the link, and post them from home. (We can't access WSI from work) I'll try to be a bit more diligent about remembering the link - but that was straight from the website.

jabrch
11-05-2005, 04:12 PM
Someone please correct my title. This was not actually SHEEHAN.

It was Will Carroll.

http://thejuice.baseballtoaster.com/archives/282895.html

Story still stands - just a differnt mope who wrote it.

Tragg
11-05-2005, 04:19 PM
Self-important rationalization of the highest order, with a paranoid/martyr complex thrown in. Note to Joe Sheehan & co: Sometimes people blindly following a doctrine because it's just not right, not because they're afraid of it or "can't handle the truth".

No one argues that stats have value.

That's what makes them so annoying. They act like they invented statistical analysis. Baseball has always been a game of stats; they are followed, cherished, published every day and more on Sundays in local papers for the last century, etc.

jabrch
11-05-2005, 04:21 PM
That's what makes them so annoying. They act like they invented statistical analysis. Baseball has always been a game of stats; they are followed, cherished, published every day and more on Sundays in local papers for the last century, etc.

Then, after that they try and convince you that stats are not new. They will Branch Rickey you to death. Everyone knows stats are a part of the game. I have no problem with statistics. I have an econ degree and an MBA and have taken loads of stats classes, and use statistical analysis in my profession. My problem is not with the use of stats, rather the misuse, abuse, and bombasticly ignorant pontification about said stats.

Daver
11-05-2005, 04:31 PM
Someone please correct my title. This was not actually SHEEHAN.

It was Will Carroll.

http://thejuice.baseballtoaster.com/archives/282895.html

Story still stands - just a differnt mope who wrote it.

Fixed.

Tragg
11-05-2005, 04:46 PM
Someone please correct my title. This was not actually SHEEHAN.

It was Will Carroll.

http://thejuice.baseballtoaster.com/archives/282895.html

Story still stands - just a differnt mope who wrote it.

Thanks for the link. Tragg, aka DrBox, has made a comment.

fquaye149
11-05-2005, 09:22 PM
Screw you…I never ONCE heard AJs name mentioned in conjunction with steroids until just now. That's not only unprofessional (no surprise), but it is a sign of a person with a complete lack of journalistic integrity.


to be fair, AJ WAS indicted in the BALCO snafu, but was immediately let go on account of his indictment was a mistake. They apologized profusely.

So it is understandable that he would have associations of AJ and BALCO, especially when you consider what a lazy thinker and writer he is.

jabrch
11-06-2005, 10:05 AM
to be fair, AJ WAS indicted in the BALCO snafu, but was immediately let go on account of his indictment was a mistake. They apologized profusely.

So it is understandable that he would have associations of AJ and BALCO, especially when you consider what a lazy thinker and writer he is.

To say he has "a whiff of Balco on him", in any supposedly respectable site, is negligent and ignorant. That's acceptable behaviour from a fan, but not from an analyst.

NWSox
11-07-2005, 12:28 AM
The previous posts have done a fine job in pointing out the unbelievable bias of the BB worshipers and the multiple axes they seem intent to grind. What is interesting is that if you look at the teams that mystify the Moneyball types, they all had strong pitching. When the Moneyball types talk about building a roster, they always talk about offense. They don't have the model to properly comprehend the value of pitching (and its best friend defense). This blind spot is especially amplified in the playoffs where the statistical analysis that justifies the high OBP guys who can't run goes out the window in a short series. There won't be any backlash against the Moneyball guys because of the White Sox. Just a return to the tried and true reliance on pitching to win championships. If the Moneyballers can look away from the computer screen long enough to understand this, they'll hang around. Otherwise they will be a fad.

fquaye149
11-07-2005, 01:12 AM
To say he has "a whiff of Balco on him", in any supposedly respectable site, is negligent and ignorant. That's acceptable behaviour from a fan, but not from an analyst.

like i said. Read my post. I'm just explaining to you the association b/t balco and AJ, fraudulent as it may be.

34 Inch Stick
11-07-2005, 11:41 AM
The whole article has a Paul's-letter-to-the-Romans feel to it, in that he seems to be writing for the purpose of buoying his converts against losing faith due to the assaults of the nonbelievers. That is perfectly acceptable for a religious writer. It seems a little strange for someone who writes about entertainment.

voodoochile
11-07-2005, 02:09 PM
The whole article has a Paul's-letter-to-the-Romans feel to it, in that he seems to be writing for the purpose of buoying his converts against losing faith due to the assaults of the nonbelievers. That is perfectly acceptable for a religious writer. It seems a little strange for someone who writes about entertainment.

More so since the whole idea behind BP/MB is to let the stats speak for themselves. Stats don't need a good marketing departmen behind them because they either are good stats or bad stats. If you need to sell your stats, you probably have bad stats...

bobowhite
11-07-2005, 02:52 PM
Speaking as both a Sox fan and a person with some statistical sophistication under my belt (I do work in the field, did a little graduate work, etc.) I can understand the frustration of some statistical types with the 2005 White Sox. Like all good teams, they battled everygame. Like a lot of good teams, everything gelled early and they got off to a fantastic start and then peaked just in time for the playoffs. Like many champions, they won several games they should have lost. They played smart, they played tenaciously and most of all, they played as a team in nearly every game this year. Good teams typically have good pitching, the White Sox had the best pitching in the league this year and backed it up by doing all the little things right. Ozzie was very proactive on all of the players, when someone did something wrong or got greedy they seemed to get talked to right away. When Ozzie made a mistake, he admitted it right away and didn't keep repeating it.

When a team is focussed as a team, hungry and has the league's best pitching, they should win the World Series. Recently a lot of teams have won championships with deep flaws and that has affected the stats that statheads have been using lately.

The one stat that always matters: wins.

ma-gaga
11-07-2005, 03:44 PM
Add a castoff catcher ... a waiver bait pitcher or two, and some underachieving inhouse players. ... Is there a way to intentionally do what the White Sox have done?
...
I had a long conversation with someone on the scouting side of the street about "makeup."
...
Arguing makeup is like proving a negative. Scouts would be better served by a more objective approach while statheads could learn a lot from a long talk with a man who's watched more baseball than I ever could hope to.


I don't have a problem with his main points. He dresses it up with some crappy metaphors and biased junk, but the MAIN POINT is right on. Both the scouts and the statheads can learn from each other.

Pitching and Defense win championships. But every team strives to excel in these areas, the difference was health and a little bit of luck. The W.Sox targeted 5 undervalued players, had a decent level of homegrown talent, got 'lucky' that Garland dominated, and that the rest of their staff stayed healthy. What they did was special, but every team tries to do what they did. It takes some luck to win. You have to embrace that.

So what the hell is my point?

Statheads don't get that luck happens, or that luck isn't just a random variable. But the scouting (or the "anti-stathead") side doesn't believe in luck at all. Neither is exclusively right. It takes luck to be good. But it takes a talented team to be lucky...

bobowhite
11-07-2005, 04:51 PM
I think one factor that a lot of people overlook is Herm Schneider. One of my sisters is a rehab doctor and she has on occasion spoken with Schneider and other team trainers. She tells me that our man Herm is the best trainer she has ever dealt with, bar none. I think it is no accident that Dye had no injuries this year and that really, all of the White Sox downtime was very minimal. Apart from Crede's bunting finger, Pods strained groin and El Duque's (planned) respites to the DL, the White Sox suffered no serious losses to injury. I give Herm Schneider a gold star for this year and hope he got first pick on the staff WS rings.

maurice
11-07-2005, 05:21 PM
I give Herm Schneider a gold star for this year and hope he got first pick on the staff WS rings.

This cuts both ways. If you credit Hermy for our alleged "health," you also have to criticize him for injuries, including the 2001 season and Frank's latest ankle fracture.

The truth probably is somewhere in between.

Knoxville Sox
11-07-2005, 11:14 PM
The only stats that count are the ones on the back of baseball cards pre-Bill James. If you can't find it on the back of a card circa mid-1950s, then it doesn't even have the value of a Luis Pujols card:

http://atlantaantiquegallery.com/images/cat/NellieFoxAutographOn1956ToppsCard164698751.jpg