PDA

View Full Version : A theory: Balanced Approach vs. Just Win


PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 12:44 AM
It seems we can separate nearly everyone at WSI into one of two schools of thought on how best to field a winning team. Each theory has the same goal (a championship-caliber ballclub), but each takes a diametrically opposing viewpoint on how to accomplish it.

I'm not sure if I can capture the essence of each school properly, but here's my best effort.

"The Balanced Approach School"
Proponents of this theory claim every team is an amalgamation of numerous strengths and weaknesses. The trick to winning is maximizing strengths while minimizing weaknesses to produce (in theory) the strongest possible result.

The BAS prefers ballplayers that are well-rounded in all aspects of the game. The BAS deals with ballplayers who aren't fully rounded in their skills by utilizing them where their weaknesses are least-likely to do much harm but still permit the team to benefit from the strong attributes of their game.

The BAS tends to sees balance between offense, defense, and pitching as the key towards fielding a winning ballclub.

Famous members of the BAS include Cito "Same nine guys, 24-7" Gaston and Kenny Williams.


"The Just Win School"
Proponents of this theory have little use for measuring strengths and weaknesses. The Just Win School simply looks at results, generally defined as the W-L column. The JWS says, "Skip the labor pains, show me the baby."

The JWS doesn't care about specific strengths and weaknesses except as they relate directly back to wins and losses. The JWS has no convictions one way or another about one-dimensional vs. well-rounded ballplayers, except how it relates directly back to the W-L column.

The JWS tends to see no special formula for offense, defense and pitching as the key towards fielding a winning ballclub.

Famous members of the JWS include Earl "3-run homerun" Weaver and Jerry Colangelo.

Daver
01-24-2002, 12:48 AM
You could also include Al"Just win,baby"Davis.

But then again what the hell do I know?

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by daver
You could also include Al"Just win,baby"Davis.

If the Raiders were a baseball team, Davis most-definitely would be in the JWS.

And yes, it was Davis I was thinking of when I labelled the JWS.

On a related topic...

Do you remember the 1981 Super Bowl (Raiders vs. Eagles)? Philadelphia head coach Dick Vermeil (definitely a BAS kind of guy) had his Eagles doing all sorts of special activities the week before the Super Bowl to help them deal with the pressure. Meanwhile Tom Flores (?), the Raiders coach, downplayed the whole thing and let his players run amok in the French Quarter the days leading up to the game.

It was a classic example of two different approaches to the solving the exact same problem: how to get ready for the biggest game of the year.

As it turns out, Oakland beat the **** out of Philly. Was it because of their preparation the week before the game? There is no way to prove anything.

Maybe that's why we'll never solve Manos vs. The Choice.

Daver
01-24-2002, 01:14 AM
Yes it was Tom Flores.

You know what camp you can put me in.

voodoochile
01-24-2002, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Do you remember the 1981 Super Bowl (Raiders vs. Eagles)? Philadelphia head coach Dick Vermeil (definitely a BAS kind of guy) had his Eagles doing all sorts of special activities the week before the Super Bowl to help them deal with the pressure. Meanwhile Tom Flores (?), the Raiders coach, downplayed the whole thing and let his players run amok in the French Quarter the days leading up to the game.

It was a classic example of two different approaches to the solving the exact same problem: how to get ready for the biggest game of the year.

As it turns out, Oakland beat the **** out of Philly. Was it because of their preparation the week before the game? There is no way to prove anything.

The Raiders beat the crap out of the Eagles for one simple reason. Their defense was just that much better, stronger and more physical than the Eagles.

But to discuss the intent of the thread as I read it... Vermeil was at that time a classic over manager. He had to be in charge of everything. His teams didn't handle pressure well because he tried to avoid it. When they came up against something that wasn't scripted and prepared for they tended to fold. The constant over preperation is what lead to Vermeil burning out his first go round in the NFL (same thing with Doug Collins in the NBA).

Meanwhile, Flores fit his teams personality to a T. He was loose and easy going. The team had just gotten Plunkett that year and he was flourishing in the loose and easy going atmosphere that pervaded the Raiders clubhouse and style of play. They knew they were better than the other team and didn't much give a crap what the opponent did. They were going to play their game and get the win.

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. If you compare the Sox style of play in 2000 (where they expected to win and just did their thing no matter what) to the team in 2001 (where they expected to struggle and the ton of injuries wore them down mentally (see RayRay for an example, IMO)) the differences are obvious. Last year, JM tried everything and anything to win. His constant over managing cost the team a bunch. The year before, he just let them play and got out of their way. I know the injuries hurt way more than JM's change in behavior did last year, but hopefully he can sit back and let things happen a bit this year...

czalgosz
01-24-2002, 01:25 AM
I guess I don't understand. Of course I want the Sox to win, that's the whole point. But isn't how you win to put the best players out there that you have?

I don't care if the team is particularly balanced, as long as the team is good. I do like pitching, and teams with great pitching tend to win more than teams with great offense (compare the performance of the Indians vs. the Yankees over the past few seasons) because I think you can count on good pitchers to produce in any given game more than you can count on a good hitter to produce in any given at bat. But that's just my personal preference.

If it's about discipline, then the Yankees from recent seasons I guess live very boring, corporate lifestyles. They don't go crazy and go out partying the way that say the Knicks do, they all take batting practice and fielding practice every day, and their clubhouse is very quiet and businesslike, from what I understand. Maybe you could elaborate more on what you mean?

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The Raiders beat the crap out of the Eagles for one simple reason. Their defense was just that much better, stronger and more physical than the Eagles.

I was trying to remember which team was the favorite entering that game. IIRC, the Eagles were favored as the Raiders were a wild-card and no wild-card had ever won the Super Bowl before. Or maybe that was 1983? Whatever. Oakland was simply the better team (by far) that particular Sunday. I honestly wouldn't suggest either coach's approach was the deciding factor.

As for your other suggestion regarding the loose managerial style of Manuel in 2000, versus his overmanaging style in 2001, I couldn't agree more. It was that critical first six weeks of the season that killed us--and Manuel was tinkering with the line up for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe I need a signature that says "Just Win, Baby!"

:gulp:

Daver
01-24-2002, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I was trying to remember which team was the favorite entering that game. IIRC, the Eagles were favored as the Raiders were a wild-card and no wild-card had ever won the Super Bowl before. Or maybe that was 1983? Whatever. Oakland was simply the better team (by far) that particular Sunday. I honestly wouldn't suggest either coach's approach was the deciding factor.

As for your other suggestion regarding the loose managerial style of Manuel in 2000, versus his overmanaging style in 2001, I couldn't agree more. It was that critical first six weeks of the season that killed us--and Manuel was tinkering with the line up for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe I need a signature that says "Just Win, Baby!"

:gulp:

As long as it doesn't have a picture of Al Davis in it,please.I could get you a Pic of Ted and an elephant if it helps.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I guess I don't understand. Of course I want the Sox to win, that's the whole point. But isn't how you win to put the best players out there that you have?

I don't care if the team is particularly balanced, as long as the team is good. I do like pitching, and teams with great pitching tend to win more than teams with great offense (compare the performance of the Indians vs. the Yankees over the past few seasons) because I think you can count on good pitchers to produce in any given game more than you can count on a good hitter to produce in any given at bat. But that's just my personal preference.

If it's about discipline, then the Yankees from recent seasons I guess live very boring, corporate lifestyles. They don't go crazy and go out partying the way that say the Knicks do, they all take batting practice and fielding practice every day, and their clubhouse is very quiet and businesslike, from what I understand. Maybe you could elaborate more on what you mean?

"Balance" doesn't necessarily mean "equal". A balanced approach might emphasize hitting more than other aspects. The point is BAS looks at the whole picture--the balance of several parts. You uttered the BAS credo above when you said, "Isn't how you win to put the best players out there that you have?"

You're focused on the players, because you're in the BAS. A member of the JWS would say, "I don't care which players play, as long as they win." The focus is on the result, not the process.

Go back and re-read some of your other posts. More often than not, your approach to winning is to focus on the process, not the result. You're approach isn't wrong, but it's not the only way, either.

voodoochile
01-24-2002, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I was trying to remember which team was the favorite entering that game. IIRC, the Eagles were favored as the Raiders were a wild-card and no wild-card had ever won the Super Bowl before. Or maybe that was 1983? Whatever. Oakland was simply the better team (by far) that particular Sunday. I honestly wouldn't suggest either coach's approach was the deciding factor.

As for your other suggestion regarding the loose managerial style of Manuel in 2000, versus his overmanaging style in 2001, I couldn't agree more. It was that critical first six weeks of the season that killed us--and Manuel was tinkering with the line up for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe I need a signature that says "Just Win, Baby!"

:gulp:

Ask JM (the poster, not the manager)... He'll make you a killer tag...

As to the rest of it. The first 6 weeks of the season JM tried to "balance" out the loss of pitching and lack of hitting by playing a stronger defensive team. Instead of going with what worked in 2000, he chose to keep playing Rameriz and Clayton while the rest of the team struggled offensively. His rationale was that the team needed to give up less runs because they were scoring less and the pitching was struggling. We all saw where that got the Sox. When he went back to what worked in 2000 (benching Royce and Rameriz) and putting the best offensive team out there he could then things turned around really fast. Of course by then it was too late, but it was a classic example of not letting the players do their jobs that got the Sox into the mess they were in. Another example (and this fits into the debates of the last few days) was moving Ray to third in the order (because conventional wisdom says he is more geared to hit there) thus leaving a huge hole in the 1 spot that no one else could fill. When JM finally got smart and stopped over thinking it the answer became obvious - leave the top two slots alone and move everyone else up one space.

In short, there is no way to balance the loss of 4 opening day starters and your MVP DH. You have to just let the players do what they can where they can and see what happens. Once they did that, they started winning regularly. They were what? 23 games over for the last 4 months and the only team to come from that far under .500 to finish above .500 ever? Let the kids play, JM. They will find their way...

czalgosz
01-24-2002, 01:43 AM
I guess I'm confused, maybe a little tired. How do you win if you don't think about the process of winning? Is the Just Win Theory kind of like Buddhism, where you let go of the mind, and acheive Nirvana by not being and not striving? Is is like William Burroughs, who said, "Exterminate all rational thought"? I'm not trying to be flip, I'm just trying to come to grips with this...

I like the minutae of the game. I like to watch the game, and I like some players that aren't the best in terms of production, like Brian Simmons or Craig Grebeck, but I get just as much enjoyment out of the details, the fine print of the game. If the Sox can be made better by a slight adjustment of the conventional wisdom, I'm all for it.

I hate Cito Gaston's management style, BTW. If you have a bench, you should use it. Otherwise, carry more pitchers.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Ask JM (the poster, not the manager)... He'll make you a killer tag...

As to the rest of it. The first 6 weeks of the season JM tried to "balance" out the loss of pitching and lack of hitting by playing a stronger defensive team. Instead of going with what worked in 2000, he chose to keep playing Rameriz and Clayton while the rest of the team struggled offensively. His rationale was that the team needed to give up less runs because they were scoring less and the pitching was struggling. We all saw where that got the Sox. When he went back to what worked in 2000 (benching Royce and Rameriz) and putting the best offensive team out there he could then things turned around really fast. Of course by then it was too late, but it was a classic example of not letting the players do their jobs that got the Sox into the mess they were in. Another example (and this fits into the debates of the last few days) was moving Ray to third in the order (because conventional wisdom says he is more geared to hit there) thus leaving a huge hole in the 1 spot that no one else could fill. When JM finally got smart and stopped over thinking it the answer became obvious - leave the top two slots alone and move everyone else up one space.

In short, there is no way to balance the loss of 4 opening day starters and your MVP DH. You have to just let the players do what they can where they can and see what happens. Once they did that, they started winning regularly. They were what? 23 games over for the last 4 months and the only team to come from that far under .500 to finish above .500 ever? Let the kids play, JM. They will find their way...

Well stated. I assume you're a charter member of the JWS?

:smile:

czalgosz
01-24-2002, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Ask JM (the poster, not the manager)... He'll make you a killer tag...

As to the rest of it. The first 6 weeks of the season JM tried to "balance" out the loss of pitching and lack of hitting by playing a stronger defensive team. Instead of going with what worked in 2000, he chose to keep playing Rameriz and Clayton while the rest of the team struggled offensively. His rationale was that the team needed to give up less runs because they were scoring less and the pitching was struggling. We all saw where that got the Sox. When he went back to what worked in 2000 (benching Royce and Rameriz) and putting the best offensive team out there he could then things turned around really fast. Of course by then it was too late, but it was a classic example of not letting the players do their jobs that got the Sox into the mess they were in. Another example (and this fits into the debates of the last few days) was moving Ray to third in the order (because conventional wisdom says he is more geared to hit there) thus leaving a huge hole in the 1 spot that no one else could fill. When JM finally got smart and stopped over thinking it the answer became obvious - leave the top two slots alone and move everyone else up one space.

In short, there is no way to balance the loss of 4 opening day starters and your MVP DH. You have to just let the players do what they can where they can and see what happens. Once they did that, they started winning regularly. They were what? 23 games over for the last 4 months and the only team to come from that far under .500 to finish above .500 ever? Let the kids play, JM. They will find their way...

Well, I agree that Manuel did some things that were stupid back in April and May, but I disagree about his motivations. I think his "playing hunches" and trying to let some guys play through slumps while other guys didn't get a chance at all was what killed the Sox back then.

I do agree that Williams tinkered with the ballclub a bit too much this past offseason, and that hurt the team more than anything except the injuries. It took a long time for this group to learn to play as a team. See, I believe in intangibles!

voodoochile
01-24-2002, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I guess I'm confused, maybe a little tired. How do you win if you don't think about the process of winning? Is the Just Win Theory kind of like Buddhism, where you let go of the mind, and acheive Nirvana by not being and not striving? Is is like William Burroughs, who said, "Exterminate all rational thought"? I'm not trying to be flip, I'm just trying to come to grips with this...

I like the minutae of the game. I like to watch the game, and I like some players that aren't the best in terms of production, like Brian Simmons or Craig Grebeck, but I get just as much enjoyment out of the details, the fine print of the game. If the Sox can be made better by a slight adjustment of the conventional wisdom, I'm all for it.

I hate Cito Gaston's management style, BTW. If you have a bench, you should use it. Otherwise, carry more pitchers.

It is great to think about strategy when you are a fan, but it really doesn't do a manager much good, IMO. Worry about your pitching matchups late in a game, make the occasional double switch, make a defensive substitution late to protect small leads, but other than that, let your players play. Baseball requires consistency, not big spectacular decisions. Patience is a virtue more than in any other sport. You really cannot ride one guy all year the way you can in b-ball or to some extent football.

Trying to keep everything in balance can mess with your players minds and confidence is everything in baseball. Play the best lineup. On most teams that doesn't change every day (for the Sox, it didn't in 2000 and it did in 2001). If that lineup happens to have a great balance between offense and defense, great, but if it doesn't and it wins, who cares?

voodoochile
01-24-2002, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Well stated. I assume you're a charter member of the JWS?

:smile:

To quote Paul Simon (the singer, not the senator) - "You can call me Al..."

:)

Daver
01-24-2002, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


It is great to think about strategy when you are a fan, but it really doesn't do a manager much good, IMO. Worry about your pitching matchups late in a game, make the occasional double switch, make a defensive substitution late to protect small leads, but other than that, let your players play. Baseball requires consistency, not big spectacular decisions. Patience is a virtue more than in any other sport. You really cannot ride one guy all year the way you can in b-ball or to some extent football.

Trying to keep everything in balance can mess with your players minds and confidence is everything in baseball. Play the best lineup. On most teams that doesn't change every day (for the Sox, it didn't in 2000 and it did in 2001). If that lineup happens to have a great balance between offense and defense, great, but if it doesn't and it wins, who cares?

Exactly,but you have to establish that winning lineup ASAP,and JM did not do that last year,Julio was out there even though he was batting .098,Royce was out there while batting .109.and Valentin was sitting on the bench,because the CF experiment with him failed.Sit Royce and Julio after two weeks and the season turns out different than the end result.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I guess I'm confused, maybe a little tired. How do you win if you don't think about the process of winning? Is the Just Win Theory kind of like Buddhism, where you let go of the mind, and acheive Nirvana by not being and not striving? Is is like William Burroughs, who said, "Exterminate all rational thought"? I'm not trying to be flip, I'm just trying to come to grips with this...

I like the minutae of the game. I like to watch the game, and I like some players that aren't the best in terms of production, like Brian Simmons or Craig Grebeck, but I get just as much enjoyment out of the details, the fine print of the game. If the Sox can be made better by a slight adjustment of the conventional wisdom, I'm all for it.

I hate Cito Gaston's management style, BTW. If you have a bench, you should use it. Otherwise, carry more pitchers.

Well I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but to me the JWS school (which I would put myself in) doesn't mean that you forget about the process of winning, it just means that if somthing is working then you don't "fix" it just to make it fit your theory of how the world works best.

Say you have quarterback Y coming off an injury. He had lost more games than he had won so far that season before being injured. While QB Y was out with the injury QB X won three games in a row and his teammates have developed a trust in his judgement and ability. Do you replace X with Y because Y has better lifetime stats?

Daver
01-24-2002, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


Well I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but to me the JWS school (which I would put myself in) doesn't mean that you forget about the process of winning, it just means that if somthing is working then you don't "fix" it just to make it fit your theory of how the world works best.

Say you have quarterback Y coming off an injury. He had lost more games than he had won so far that season before being injured. While QB Y was out with the injury QB X won three games in a row and his teammates have developed a trust in his judgement and ability. Do you replace X with Y because Y has better lifetime stats?

That is comparing apples to oranges,baseball doesn't work like football.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I guess I'm confused, maybe a little tired. How do you win if you don't think about the process of winning? Is the Just Win Theory kind of like Buddhism, where you let go of the mind, and acheive Nirvana by not being and not striving? Is is like William Burroughs, who said, "Exterminate all rational thought"? I'm not trying to be flip, I'm just trying to come to grips with this...

I like the minutae of the game. I like to watch the game, and I like some players that aren't the best in terms of production, like Brian Simmons or Craig Grebeck, but I get just as much enjoyment out of the details, the fine print of the game. If the Sox can be made better by a slight adjustment of the conventional wisdom, I'm all for it.

I hate Cito Gaston's management style, BTW. If you have a bench, you should use it. Otherwise, carry more pitchers.

We're blowing your mind tonight, aren't we? :cool:

Nobody is saying you're wrong. To the contrary, we're saying there are multiple "right" answers. If there was only one right approach to solving this problem (fielding a championship team), there wouldn't be any debate on how to proceed.

Your interest in the minutia of the game does not necessarily make you part of the BAS. JWS proponents look at minutia, too. However, the BAS would study minutia in order to achieve some greater total to the team's effort--presumably resulting in more wins. In contrast, the JWS would study the minutia in order to achieve a greater result--presumably through a more successful team effort.

Process vs. result. You need both. However, which should be emphasized? There is no "right" answer, but we all have strong opinions.

BAS: "Field the best players to win."
JWS: "Win by fielding the best players."

Putting one in front of the other leads to different results. Just ask Jerry Manuel.

kermittheefrog
01-24-2002, 02:07 AM
Go balanced approach! That Just Win thing can only take you so far. Sure if you are the Yankees and you can spend 110 million then you can do that to your hearts content but look at the Indians. They started out with the balanced approach but as soon as John Hart got close he abandoned his plans and his calculation for an all out assualt of signings and trades for veterans that landed him no championship, no farm system and a team he loved so much he bolted on it like a bat out of hell. Go with the balanced approach, just look at the A's. With the balanced approach they are gonna win a World Series in the next couple years, even without Giambi.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by daver


That is comparing apples to oranges,baseball doesn't work like football.
Why not? If you have a player that is getting the job done (winning games) then why replace him, especially if that player is putting in 110% and raising the level of play for the entire team. If a player is doing poorly (losing games) then take him out, even if his backup has worse stats.

I know that it is harder for one player to have as much of an affect in baseball as a quarterback does in football, but there is still an affect.

Daver
01-24-2002, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Go balanced approach! That Just Win thing can only take you so far. Sure if you are the Yankees and you can spend 110 million then you can do that to your hearts content but look at the Indians. They started out with the balanced approach but as soon as John Hart got close he abandoned his plans and his calculation for an all out assualt of signings and trades for veterans that landed him no championship, no farm system and a team he loved so much he bolted on it like a bat out of hell. Go with the balanced approach, just look at the A's. With the balanced approach they are gonna win a World Series in the next couple years, even without Giambi.

And how different from the A's are the Sox?I have yet to see a worldwind of spending and a depletion of the minor league system,yet they have a team that can and will compete till the end of the season.John Hart tried to buy a championship with his farm system,the Sox are trying to win one with their farm system.

kermittheefrog
01-24-2002, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte

Why not? If you have a player that is getting the job done (winning games) then why replace him, especially if that player is putting in 110% and raising the level of play for the entire team. If a player is doing poorly (losing games) then take him out, even if his backup has worse stats.


*cough*shortstop situation*cough*

kermittheefrog
01-24-2002, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by daver


And how different from the A's are the Sox?I have yet to see a worldwind of spending and a depletion of the minor league system,yet they have a team that can and will compete till the end of the season.John Hart tried to buy a championship with his farm system,the Sox are trying to win one with their farm system.

Before Schue left I was saying the A's and the Sox were neck and neck now I don't know what the **** Kenny is doing. Trade 3 arms for an innings eater? Shue would never do something that dumb, neither would Billy Beane. Trade for a no hit, highly paid shortstop? Shue may trade for that no hit shortstop but at least he'd get a cheap one. The plan WAS to stick with the farm system but I trading off Wells after he showed flashes last year isn't a stick with the farm system kind of plan.

Daver
01-24-2002, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


*cough*shortstop situation*cough*

Yep,and then some.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Go balanced approach! That Just Win thing can only take you so far. Sure if you are the Yankees and you can spend 110 million then you can do that to your hearts content but look at the Indians. They started out with the balanced approach but as soon as John Hart got close he abandoned his plans and his calculation for an all out assualt of signings and trades for veterans that landed him no championship, no farm system and a team he loved so much he bolted on it like a bat out of hell. Go with the balanced approach, just look at the A's. With the balanced approach they are gonna win a World Series in the next couple years, even without Giambi.

Hart is definitely in the JWS. The Yankees and Steinbrenner are a bit harder to read. They are so aggressive in so many facets of building a championship team (free agents, trades, minor league development, international signings, predatory bidding, etc.), it's hard to tell which approach (BAS vs. JWS) is being emphasized over the other.

kermittheefrog
01-24-2002, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Hart is definitely in the JWS. The Yankees and Steinbrenner are a bit harder to read. They are so aggressive in so many facets of building a championship team (free agents, trades, minor league development, international signings, predatory bidding, etc.), it's hard to tell which approach (BAS vs. JWS) is being emphasized over the other.

I think George is a separate category of his own. The take your cash and outdo everyone at everything category.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 02:31 AM
My nominee for the biggest member of the BAS:

Jerry Krause.

dougs78
01-24-2002, 09:06 AM
PHG, great post! I for one am in the BAS as you described it, and I think you did so quite well. THe JWS really surprises me though. I know there are certain posters who I usually disagree with, and now that you explain this JWS those posters all start to make more sense. I guess what surprises me is I didn't know that anyone really thought that way.

To me is just doesn't make sense to only focus on results. There is so much more to winning than "just winning." I think a "just win" approach is fantastic, BUT ONLY AFTER you have balanced your team and got the correct players playing for you team. Basically I think the whole thing is one process. The BAS must come first and then after it is completed (or mostly) then we can start to go to the JWS. Basically all I am saying is that next year the Devil Rays can't automatically go into "just win" mode and expect to be any better than they were last year.

In my opinion the Sox are not quite to that JWS, since we still have questions left to answer and things to sort out. I think we are close, but still need to see if we can get the right personnel. Of course once the season starts, you obviously play to win each and every game no matter what your theories are. But you don't do so while foresaking the future, completely.


One other thing that perhaps someone could clarify about the JWS for me is this:

You're focused on the players, because you're in the BAS. A member of the JWS would say, "I don't care which players play, as long as they win." The focus is on the result, not the process.

If the important thing is "just winning", then wouldn't you necessarily have to try a myriad of lineups until you found one that worked? And even after you found it, would'nt you have to tinker with it all the time, when you happen to lose? This sounds an awful lot like what you are criticizing Manuel for doing last year when he didn't define the roles for the team. The JWS as I understand it should not be concerned with things like roles, since they are of no importance as long as there are wins.

Perhaps someone could reconcile this apparent dilemma.

Kilroy
01-24-2002, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

BAS: "Field the best players to win."
JWS: "Win by fielding the best players."

Putting one in front of the other leads to different results. Just ask Jerry Manuel.

That doesn't seem to be true, but I'll let you tell me how you think is.

To me, this is the same as:

3 + 1 = 4
4 = 3 + 1

Maybe a more acurate statement of JWS vs BAS is this:

BAS: This is what I have. Does it get me where I wanna be?
JWS: This is where I wanna be. How do I get there?

This kinda reminds me of when Ditka took over the Bears way back when. In his first speech to the team, he told them: We're going to the Superbowl. You can come along if you want to, but we're going with or without you.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


That doesn't seem to be true, but I'll let you tell me how you think is.

To me, this is the same as:

3 + 1 = 4
4 = 3 + 1

Maybe a more acurate statement of JWS vs BAS is this:

BAS: This is what I have. Does it get me where I wanna be?
JWS: This is where I wanna be. How do I get there?

This kinda reminds me of when Ditka took over the Bears way back when. In his first speech to the team, he told them: We're going to the Superbowl. You can come along if you want to, but we're going with or without you.

I think that ideally they are the same thing but in reality they rarely are. More like 8 2 2 <> 2 8 2.

Of course people in the JWS school of thought have ideas or methodologies on how to go about winning the same way that people in the BAS do. The disconnect comes when people in th BAS treat the methodology as the goal instead of the means to the goal.

Winning is the number one goal (IMO). When somthing happens that doesn't fit the methodolgy, but nontheless moves you toward the goal (winning), people in the JWS embrace it because they are focused on the goal (winning). Often times people in the BAS see that same situation as something that needs to be changed or "fixed" because it doesn't fit into their methodology. They are focused on the means rather than the goal (winning). That is a big mistake IMO.

And lastly I would like to say that the goal is winning and winning is the goal. Oh, and don't forget to focus on the goal of winning. :smile:

Iwritecode
01-24-2002, 12:48 PM
This quote as confusing as it sounds, describes everything perfectly. I also believe which "school" you belong to goes hand in hand with the Royce/Jose arguement.

When somthing happens that doesn't fit the methodolgy, but nontheless moves you toward the goal (winning), people in the JWS embrace it because they are focused on the goal (winning).

Jose made 36 erros at SS yet the Sox still managed to win 95 games and the Central division. Hey, we didn't look pretty doing it, but we did it.


Often times people in the BAS see that same situation as something that needs to be changed or "fixed" because it doesn't fit into their methodology. They are focused on the means rather than the goal (winning). That is a big mistake IMO.

The powers that be looked at Jose's 36 errors instead of the 95 wins and said "Hey, this guy had too many errors. We need a guy who makes less errors."

Result: We obtain Clayton, shift a number of players out of position and only take third in the division with 83 wins...

voodoochile
01-24-2002, 12:58 PM
Of course people in the JWS school of thought have ideas or methodologies on how to go about winning the same way that people in the BAS do. The disconnect comes when people in th BAS treat the methodology as the goal instead of the means to the goal.

Well said.

BA'ers believe if they put the proper formula on the field it will win for them. When it doesn't, there response is often "I don't know why we aren't winning, the formula says we should be(See Wanny in Chicago). "

JW'ers don't care if the team fits some formula, so long as it wins.

It seems after reading this thread again this morning that one of the things that BA'ers tend to forget is that attitude does play a role in winning. That elusive element/dirty word - chemistry. Chemistry does not imply that everyone loves each other but it DOES imply that everyone share a common goal - winning - and a belief that they can get the job done no matter what. In 2000 the Sox had that belief, in 2001 they did not. When the injuries started to pile up and some of the key elements struggled, they had nothing to fall back on. In 2000 when they went through a rough stretch with injuries and struggled to win some important games in August, they just kept on playing until they worked their way out of it.

FarWestChicago
01-24-2002, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It seems after reading this thread again this morning that one of the things that BA'ers tend to forget is that attitude does play a role in winning. That elusive element/dirty word - chemistry. Chemistry does not imply that everyone loves each other but it DOES imply that everyone share a common goal - winning - and a belief that they can get the job done no matter what. In 2000 the Sox had that belief, in 2001 they did not.You are correct, sir. Ironically, the player most of the BAS folks really don't like is the team leader in this elusive element. :smile:

dougs78
01-24-2002, 01:30 PM
Code, look at what you are saying here:

Jose made 36 erros at SS yet the Sox still managed to win 95 games and the Central division. Hey, we didn't look pretty doing it, but we did it.

Just becuase a team wins 95 games and gets swept in the playoffs, this somehow means they have no deficencies and that NOTHING should change for the next year???? Are you kidding me? This is the EXACT attitude that everyone is trying guard against, here. If that were true, why then did the Yankees sign Mussina after winning a World Series title? Why did Seattle go out and get cirillo and Ben Davis after winning 116 games???

Result: We obtain Clayton, shift a number of players out of position and only take third in the division with 83 wins...

I think you have a nasty habit of looking at things in a vacuum. Do you honestly think that had we not gone out and got Clayton, then mysteriously we would have won 95 games again??? Would having Jose at SS last year have prevented Thomas, Wells, Eldred, Parque, Wunsch, Osuna, Biddle and Barcelo from becoming injured??? I'm sorry but you will have a tough time convincing me of that. Those injuries had a far, far, FAR greater impact on the Sox winning or losing games than anything Royce did.

dougs78
01-24-2002, 01:32 PM
And Voodoo, read my previous posts and I think you'll note that I don't suffer from the disconnect you refer to in that post. Also to say the Sox had all the pieces in place last year is complete nonsense. They appeared to have alot of the pieces (not all), going into the season, which as you will recall prompted the management to concoct the slogan, "its time." (sound's mysteriously similar to "just win" doesn't it?) However, those pieces that were in place ended up being broken by injuries. Thus the focus returned to Balancing the team for upcoming years.

Iwritecode
01-24-2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Code, look at what you are saying here:



I think you have a nasty habit of looking at things in a vacuum. Do you honestly think that had we not gone out and got Clayton, then mysteriously we would have won 95 games again??? Would having Jose at SS last year have prevented Thomas, Wells, Eldred, Parque, Wunsch, Osuna, Biddle and Barcelo from becoming injured??? I'm sorry but you will have a tough time convincing me of that. Those injuries had a far, far, FAR greater impact on the Sox winning or losing games than anything Royce did.

No, not really. My point was that it wasn't broken, why did they try to fix it? We didn't lose 3 straight playoff games because of who was playing at short. Pitching and defense wins in the post-season. We had both. We lost because the bats fell asleep. Putting a different SS in wasn't going to solve that problem.

I'm not saying we would have won 95 games again but I do believe we would have won more that we did. They could have taken that 5 million they are paying Clayton and used it for something else. Manuel wouldn't have had quite as many rotating lineups to go through. And we would have only had 1 guy batting .100 through the first month instead of 2. Injuries are one thing. They can't be prevented. Trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist and creating a handful more in the process can and should be prevented.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Code, look at what you are saying here:



I think you have a nasty habit of looking at things in a vacuum. Do you honestly think that had we not gone out and got Clayton, then mysteriously we would have won 95 games again??? Would having Jose at SS last year have prevented Thomas, Wells, Eldred, Parque, Wunsch, Osuna, Biddle and Barcelo from becoming injured??? I'm sorry but you will have a tough time convincing me of that. Those injuries had a far, far, FAR greater impact on the Sox winning or losing games than anything Royce did.
I don't really fault JM or KW (or whoever was actually responsible) for putting Clayton in the lineup. I fault them for leaving him in for as long as they did.

voodoochile
01-24-2002, 02:35 PM
You have heard the expression - "All roads lead to Rome"

Here at WSI it's - "All threads lead to Manos V Choice"...

Iwritecode
01-24-2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You have heard the expression - "All roads lead to Rome"

Here at WSI it's - "All threads lead to Manos V Choice"...

I have no idea what you are talking about...

:) :) :)

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You have heard the expression - "All roads lead to Rome"

Here at WSI it's - "All threads lead to Manos V Choice"...
This thread was a thinly veiled Manos vs Choice conversation to begin with.

Kilroy
01-24-2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte
This thread was a thinly veiled Manos vs Choice conversation to begin with.

That's for sure. I don't think there's a single one of us who cares HOW the Sox win the World Series, just win it, baby!

If Jose makes 50 errors at short and they win it all, who gives a damn? Problem is, you're not likely to win it all w/ a guy making 50 errors at short.

dougs78
01-24-2002, 03:17 PM
OK, Code, we can agree to disagree on that. I just don't know if you've furthered the case of the JWS at all. But either way, I definitely have to agree with you about the salary thing. Every time I look at our salaries from last year and see jose and royce at 5th and 6th on the team, I shudder. It would be one thing to have this controversy if we were the yanks with a 170 million payroll, or even if these were two 500K guys, but geezus.


I think the "all roads lead to rome..." quote is very true, but I think this argument was a little deeper than just jose and royce. They just miraculously seem to always be the most convenient illustrations for a myriad of points.... :smile:

I think you'll notice that both CZ and I have (along with Soxboyrob i believe) been the most vocal supporters of BAS and aren't necessarily against Jose at all. I can't recall exactly their points of view, but I for one do appreciate the qualities that Jose brings to the team. But at the same time, I don't discount the benefits that Royce brings to the team either.

Actually, not to tip my hand here, but I think more than anything else I just like playing devil's advocate :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
That's for sure. I don't think there's a single one of us who cares HOW the Sox win the World Series, just win it, baby!


That's not true. Re-read my the initial post. There is no "right" answer to building a champion. This is explicitly written. If there was only one proper formula, there would never be a debate on how to proceed. The point is all of us have strong opinions on these issues, depending on whether we're process-oriented (BAS) or results-oriented (JWS).

The problem is many of you are making value judgments about the other side's thought process. It's pointless to do so, because there is no "right" answer. Our opinions are so strong, we can't even imagine how someone else's thought process could be so different.

I agree that Manos V. Choice is a perfect metaphor for the philosophical debate. It has all the elements necessary to bring out strongly opposing opinions. Best of all, nearly all them are grounded in our own orientation, BAS or JWS.

Process vs. results, you need both. However, which one do you emphasize? Your answer makes all the difference in the world.

Debate on.

kermittheefrog
01-24-2002, 03:27 PM
Hey you watch it buddies. I'm a hardcore BASer but I haven't supported the choice for a second. I said from the beginning he was gonna screw the team over. I think a smart BASer would let a winning formula that doesn't fit the ideal stay in place while assembling a contingency plan if things fell apart.

dougs78
01-24-2002, 03:36 PM
Yeah, sorry Kermit, i meant you insteadof SoxboyRob in that other post as a supporter of BAS.

Kilroy
01-24-2002, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's not true.

Alright, I take that back. I guess since it was the first thing that popped into my head when I read it, its easy to assume that's where u were going with it.

Iwritecode
01-24-2002, 04:11 PM
I think another good example of the JWS is that guy that threw that no-hitter in Florida last year. He had what, nine walks and at least 1 wild pitch right? Yet he never once allowed a hit and notched the win. That's works for me. Granted it's not dependable but hey, if he does it 20 times in one year who's going to argue it?

Maybe that's why I'm a programmer. I think along the same lines there too. I throw some code together and it looks really ugly but it works. Sometimes I don't know why it works, but it does.

dougs78
01-24-2002, 04:25 PM
I think another good example of the JWS is that guy that threw that no-hitter in Florida last year. He had what, nine walks and at least 1 wild pitch right? Yet he never once allowed a hit and notched the win. That's works for me.

You know Tuffy Rhodes once hit 3 home runs in one MLB game...but that doesn't mean hes a cleanup hitter (unless hes in japan). :smile:

Burnett was far from consistent or even that great last year. He was ok, but certainly replacable in a rotation.

To quote Wesley Snipes character from White Men Can't Jump, "The sun even shines on a dog's a** somedays"

Jerry_Manuel
01-24-2002, 07:26 PM
I'm in the "Sox won't win anything till Reinsdorf sells camp."

I'll sit down and wait for...well, I'll just sit down.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
PHG, great post! I for one am in the BAS as you described it, and I think you did so quite well. THe JWS really surprises me though. I know there are certain posters who I usually disagree with, and now that you explain this JWS those posters all start to make more sense. I guess what surprises me is I didn't know that anyone really thought that way.

I'm glad it helps to clear up some of the confusion around here. If this wasn't a message board, I swear we would have had a couple fatalities around here. :smile:

To me is just doesn't make sense to only focus on results. There is so much more to winning than "just winning." I think a "just win" approach is fantastic, BUT ONLY AFTER you have balanced your team and got the correct players playing for you team. Basically I think the whole thing is one process. The BAS must come first and then after it is completed (or mostly) then we can start to go to the JWS. Basically all I am saying is that next year the Devil Rays can't automatically go into "just win" mode and expect to be any better than they were last year.

Correct. In fact, I think most JWS proponents would recognize Tampa can't win anything with their current players and start planning how to win as quickly as possible down the line. The real differences between BAS and JWS will come when the team is on the cusp of something good, and you have to make the last few moves to put the team over the top. That's where each school's orientation leads to different opinions.

In my opinion the Sox are not quite to that JWS, since we still have questions left to answer and things to sort out. I think we are close, but still need to see if we can get the right personnel. Of course once the season starts, you obviously play to win each and every game no matter what your theories are. But you don't do so while foresaking the future, completely.

Yours is a perfectly rational thought process for a BAS proponent. A JWS proponent would point out that the team is just one year removed from winning 95 games and the division crown, and have no hesitation making moves to succeed in the post-season.


One other thing that perhaps someone could clarify about the JWS for me is this:
If the important thing is "just winning", then wouldn't you necessarily have to try a myriad of lineups until you found one that worked? And even after you found it, would'nt you have to tinker with it all the time, when you happen to lose? This sounds an awful lot like what you are criticizing Manuel for doing last year when he didn't define the roles for the team. The JWS as I understand it should not be concerned with things like roles, since they are of no importance as long as there are wins.

Perhaps someone could reconcile this apparent dilemma.

JWS would be upset with Manuel because he took a winning team and failed to use it the same way the following season. Voodoo pointed out that the injuries caused the whole team to play tight, and Manuel was one of the victims. By the time he relaxed and let his players play, it was too late. As a member of JWS, I'm royally pissed that Manuel got wrapped up in process rather than results the first six weeks of the year. Those line up changes were totally unnecessary--to a JWS way of thinking.

JWS proponents love to tinker (same a BAS proponents), but a JWSer will get awfully pissed if a proven winning formula is discarded unnecessarily. That's what Manuel (and Williams) did.

Daver
01-24-2002, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
I'm in the "Sox won't win anything till Reinsdorf sells camp."



You'll be waiting a long time then JM.

Jerry_Manuel
01-24-2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by daver
You'll be waiting a long time then JM.

I'm well aware of that, Daver. It's a risk I'm willing to take. :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
I'm in the "Sox won't win anything till Reinsdorf sells camp."

I'll sit down and wait for...well, I'll just sit down.

That's JWS, Jerry. You're convinced no amount of process by Reinsdorf's minions will ever make the team a champion. Thus, by default, you're JWS. You simply feel we'll never achieve winning.

I'm sure you're not alone. :cool:

Jerry_Manuel
01-24-2002, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's JWS, Jerry. You're convinced no amount of process by Reinsdorf's minions will ever make the team a champion. Thus, by default, you're JWS. You simply feel we'll never achieve winning.

I'm sure you're not alone. :cool:

You would be correct George, that's how I feel. I think the Sox will win the World Series again, just not till Reinsdorf is out of the picture.

dougs78
01-24-2002, 10:49 PM
JWS would be upset with Manuel because he took a winning team and failed to use it the same way the following season. Voodoo pointed out that the injuries caused the whole team to play tight, and Manuel was one of the victims. By the time he relaxed and let his players play, it was too late. As a member of JWS, I'm royally pissed that Manuel got wrapped up in process rather than results the first six weeks of the year. Those line up changes were totally unnecessary--to a JWS way of thinking.

Ah-ha! I think I got it now. So basically the difference between the BAS and JWS is not so much one of philosophy, but instead one of time. So in fact what the real disagreement is not one of "results" vs. "process", but rather a disagreement as to which rung of the ladder our team now sits. A sort of equilibrium if you will...where the farther we progress to one side, (ie. winning), the more we slide toward the JWS school. So that if someone feels we are very, very close to being able to go for it all, then they would necessarily be a JWS. However, if they instead thought we needed to inch our way a little further down the line with preparation, then they would necessarily be a BAS proponent.

This to me is very understandable (and explains why people with such similar goals can have just different ideas)

The only small thing I wanted to clarify further is just how much tinkering/changing one can allow and still be from JWS school. For instance, at what point does the signing of a new player (ie, Mussina for the Yanks) constitute JWS as opposed to BAS? It would seem that a signing like that would put you in BAS, but I think we can all assume that the yanks are always in JWS. Is it simply a matter of how certain one can be that a new player will help the team? So that getting Arod would be JWS, while getting Clayton would be BAS? If so who delineates?

Basically how much can you change from a winning ballclub and still say you are in JWS mode? How many changes could the D'backs make without angering their JWS fans???

czalgosz
01-24-2002, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


JWS would be upset with Manuel because he took a winning team and failed to use it the same way the following season. Voodoo pointed out that the injuries caused the whole team to play tight, and Manuel was one of the victims. By the time he relaxed and let his players play, it was too late. As a member of JWS, I'm royally pissed that Manuel got wrapped up in process rather than results the first six weeks of the year. Those line up changes were totally unnecessary--to a JWS way of thinking.

JWS proponents love to tinker (same a BAS proponents), but a JWSer will get awfully pissed if a proven winning formula is discarded unnecessarily. That's what Manuel (and Williams) did.

Well, there were three players that I didn't think should be on the team on Opening Day last season, and I wish that the Rivals archives were here to prove my point. They were Josh Paul (I screamed about that one in spring training), Julio Ramirez (I thought the whole point of getting rid of Jeff Abbott was to give Rowand a shot. Apparently I was wrong), and Harold Baines (he was one of my favorites as a kid, but his time is past).

I was also sceptical about Royce Clayton, and I said that the fact that Mike Sirotka was hurt was the only reason that trading him for David Wells was a fair deal. I was pissed we traded Chad Bradford for Miguel Olivo, and I blew up when the Sox traded for Osuna to try to make up for that blunder. In fact, I was highly critical of all the moves made by Kenny Williams last off-season, with the exception of Eyre for Glover, not because I liked or even knew who Glover was, but I was impressed that Williams convinced a team to give us anything for Scott Eyre.

I had a bad feeling about the 2001 season coming out of spring training. I didn't think it would be as bad as it was, but in my mind, something was wrong. The Sox had far too many one-dimensional guys on the team, and a couple too many zero-dimensional guys.

Looking back, with the combination that Manuel had on his hands of injuries, poor performances by guys who should have been mainstays, and people on his team that had no business being there, I don't think it would have mattered whether he tinkered with the lineup or not, the Sox still would have gotten their butts kicked.

It seems that Kenny Williams was trying to make his mark on the team, so he made changes. I don't think he was trying to rob Schueler of credit, but I think he personally prefers different types of ballplayers than Schueler does, and he was trying to bring his type of ballplayers into the fold. Well, it was kind of like trying to mix oil and water - it just didn't work.

Having said all that, I am a lot more excited about this years' Sox (from a "balance" perspective, I suppose) than I was about last years' Sox. I think that this team is a lot more well-rounded and has learned a lot from their experiences last season.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

My last word on Choice vs. Manos (I promise this time) - if the Sox can get their hands on a good-hitting third baseman (not a prospect, a player who's proven something), then I will gladly jump on the "dump Royce" bandwagon.

Daver
01-24-2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


My last word on Choice vs. Manos (I promise this time) - if the Sox can get their hands on a good-hitting third baseman (not a prospect, a player who's proven something), then I will gladly jump on the "dump Royce" bandwagon.

The dump Royce Bandwagon already left town,the "pelt Royce with rocks and garbage bandwagon"is picking up speed though.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Basically how much can you change from a winning ballclub and still say you are in JWS mode? How many changes could the D'backs make without angering their JWS fans???

I'm not sure I can answer your question. First, I'm not an AZ fan, so I'm not familiar with who fits the JWS philosophy and thus, to my thinking, ought to be kept for next season. Perhaps someone else can shed light here.

I also think it's important to note that neither the BAS or JWS completely exclude either process or results from their thinking. You need both, after all. Confronted with a championship team like Arizona's, the BAS would concentrate on tweaking the roster in the quest of further strengthening the ballclub. Meanwhile, the JWS would more more likely focus on holding the team together, and wait to make changes until after it begins to fail in some way--from injuries, for example.

Process vs. results, again.

czalgosz
01-24-2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by daver


The dump Royce Bandwagon already left town,the "pelt Royce with rocks and garbage bandwagon"is picking up speed though.

Let me set aside the question of whether he belongs in the Sox lineup, as apparently this question will not be settled until Royce and Valentin are both long-dead.

I live in California, as such I don't have access to the Chicago media the way most of you do. So let me ask this question, and honestly, because it seems like I'm missing something. Why the personal hatred of Royce Clayton? In the end, he did pretty much what he always has in terms of production, so he wasn't underacheiving.

Here are the only rational argument I've been able to cull about why Royce is hated -

Royce is blocking Joe Crede's ascent, because he makes too much money to bench and he also makes too much money to trade or release.

I can totally understand that argument, and like I said, I won't argue it anymore. But, if you believe that, would the appropriate people to hate be Kenny Williams and/or Jerry Manuel? Royce shouldn't be in the "hate" scenario.

czalgosz
01-24-2002, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I'm not sure I can answer your question. First, I'm not an AZ fan, so I'm not familiar with who fits the JWS philosophy and thus, to my thinking, ought to be kept for next season. Perhaps someone else can shed light here.

I also think it's important to note that neither the BAS or JWS completely exclude either process or results from their thinking. You need both, after all. Confronted with a championship team like Arizona's, the BAS would concentrate on tweaking the roster in the quest of further strengthening the ballclub. Meanwhile, the JWS would more more likely focus on holding the team together, and wait to make changes until after it begins to fail in some way--from injuries, for example.

Process vs. results, again.

Okay, you hit it right there. I totally understand now.

If I was running the Diamondbacks, I would strongly consider trading Randy Johnson, because my team is not getting any younger, and Johnson will never bring more in trade than he will right now. I can get three or four really good players and begin making sure that I will compete two or three years down the line.

You, George, would look at me and yell, "Are you nuts!?! He's RANDY JOHNSON!!! Did you watch him pitch last October?" And you would have him starting on Opening Day until he shows that he can't and worry about the future when you come to it.

Like you said, neither approach is wrong, just different. And this board would be pretty boring if we all agreed.

Kilroy
01-24-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Why the personal hatred of Royce Clayton? In the end, he did pretty much what he always has in terms of production, so he wasn't underacheiving.

I think that Royce is hated because of his truly piss poor start last season. It coincided with the time of the year that Sox fans had to come to grips with the fact that the beloved Pale hose were not going to return to the previous year's levels and exceed them as expected. When that set in, people looked for someone to blame, and who better than the guy hitting .102? And, at the same time, the most loved player on the team was displaced from his natural positon in favor of this new player who sucks.

czalgosz
01-24-2002, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I think that Royce is hated because of his truly piss poor start last season. It coincided with the time of the year that Sox fans had to come to grips with the fact that the beloved Pale hose were not going to return to the previous year's levels and exceed them as expected. When that set in, people looked for someone to blame, and who better than the guy hitting .102? And, at the same time, the most loved player on the team was displaced from his natural positon in favor of this new player who sucks.

Okay, I'll buy that. Emotion like hatred is rarely if ever based on reason, in fact the opposite.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
,,,,In fact, I was highly critical of all the moves made by Kenny Williams last off-season, with the exception of Eyre for Glover, not because I liked or even knew who Glover was, but I was impressed that Williams convinced a team to give us anything for Scott Eyre.

I had a bad feeling about the 2001 season coming out of spring training. I didn't think it would be as bad as it was, but in my mind, something was wrong. The Sox had far too many one-dimensional guys on the team, and a couple too many zero-dimensional guys.

Kenny Williams definitely took a BAS approach to the 2001 team.
His approach was to strengthen weaknesses (like defense) by acquiring players who possessed that strength. Had he been a good BASer, he would have recognized the one-dimensional aspect to the skills of Julio Ramirez and Royce Clayton. Frankly, a smart BASer would never have made such a severe compromise. He admitted as much when he revealed his acquisition of Clayton was only meant to be traded again.

Once the injuries piled up, and Manuel panicked, the season was over--and we never got to see the 2000 champion team take the field. (Okay, maybe twice). That drives a JWSer absolutely crazy.

Daver
01-24-2002, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Royce is blocking Joe Crede's ascent, because he makes too much money to bench and he also makes too much money to trade or release.

I can totally understand that argument, and like I said, I won't argue it anymore. But, if you believe that, would the appropriate people to hate be Kenny Williams and/or Jerry Manuel? Royce shouldn't be in the "hate" scenario.

With me it is a personal thing that has no basis in the media or the management,but with the player,I get tired of watching a so-called "defensive specialist"stand like a Buddy Lee doll at SS and watch anything hit ten feet away from glide through,while the so-called "hack"SS that would have tried to make a play on the ball,and chances are could have at least stopped it in the IF,sits on the bench.

That has to be up there in WSI history as far as run on sentences go,but it sums up my take on Buddy Lee.

Kilroy
01-24-2002, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by daver


With me it is a personal thing that has no basis in the media or the management,but with the player,I get tired of watching a so-called "defensive specialist"stand like a Buddy Lee doll at SS and watch anything hit ten feet away from glide through,while the so-called "hack"SS that would have tried to make a play on the ball,and chances are could have at least stopped it in the IF,sits on the bench.

That has to be up there in WSI history as far as run on sentences go,but it sums up my take on Buddy Lee.

The only problem I have with this particular argument is that there's nothing that could prove that Valentin could get to any of these balls that you claim Clayton can't touch. Its all speculation, yet it's stated as proven fact.

Daver
01-24-2002, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


The only problem I have with this particular argument is that there's nothing that could prove that Valentin could get to any of these balls that you claim Clayton can't touch. Its all speculation, yet it's stated as proven fact.

No it was NOT stated as fact,I thought I made it clear that it was my opinion by saying it was not based on media,disagree with my opinion all you like,but don't try and say I am stating it as fact.

Kilroy
01-25-2002, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by daver


No it was NOT stated as fact,I thought I made it clear that it was my opinion by saying it was not based on media,disagree with my opinion all you like,but don't try and say I am stating it as fact.

Well, for the record, I didn't mean to say you stated it as fact. But it's been posted here 1000 times that Valentin has more range than Clayton when in truth, the only thing anyone could really say is that they think he has more range.

Anyway, I'm not going down this path again.

Answer me this, Daver and anyone else: since 2001 is dead and gone, what does Clayton have to do this season for him not to be hated? And I'd like real answers, not things like "get out of town", "retire", "shoot himself thru the ear". What's this guy gotta do on the field to not be hated?

PaleHoseGeorge
01-25-2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
I think that Royce is hated because of his truly piss poor start last season. It coincided with the time of the year that Sox fans had to come to grips with the fact that the beloved Pale hose were not going to return to the previous year's levels and exceed them as expected. When that set in, people looked for someone to blame, and who better than the guy hitting .102? And, at the same time, the most loved player on the team was displaced from his natural positon in favor of this new player who sucks.

Speaking for myself, the biggest frustration came from Manuel's line ups. I was not alone, either. Dave Wills and Bill Melton were left speechless on several occasions during their pre-game radio show, running down the names on Manuel's game card. Wills finally gave up trying to justify it midway through May when the season was essentially over. He simply started agreeing with all his callers. I felt sorry for him, because I knew he couldn't say what he was really feeling.

Somebody (code?) went back and checked. Manuel only used his 2000 starting line up twice before the injuries made the point moot. To a JWSer, that's inexcusable. Had the team not rallied for him later in the season, I would be calling for Manuel's head. The fact they did rally for Manuel indicates the team plays hard for him. As a JWSer, I've got to respect that.

Was Clayton hated? Sure, but mostly because of how Manuel used him.

FarWestChicago
01-25-2002, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Was Clayton hated? Sure, but mostly because of how Manuel used him. His crying like a baby when benched while hitting under .105 or sitting by himself in the dugout while all the other players were out on the field for the post Sept. 11th tribute didn't endear him to many people either.

Daver
01-25-2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Well, for the record, I didn't mean to say you stated it as fact. But it's been posted here 1000 times that Valentin has more range than Clayton when in truth, the only thing anyone could really say is that they think he has more range.

Anyway, I'm not going down this path again.

Answer me this, Daver and anyone else: since 2001 is dead and gone, what does Clayton have to do this season for him not to be hated? And I'd like real answers, not things like "get out of town", "retire", "shoot himself thru the ear". What's this guy gotta do on the field to not be hated?

He could start with trying harder at the plate from the get go,instead of getting it done after confronted by the media and saying"I guess I have to hit to stay in the line up".This doesn't get brought up much,but his turnaround at the plate coincides with his benching,and his comments to that effect.That alone tells me that the guy really doesn't give a rat's ass about the team,but has self directed goals.

He could also try to be a complete SS,instead of not trying on anything that might get called an error if the play isn't made,another point that he has self directed,rather than team oriented goals.He does a fine job of anything hit right at him,but anything else goes for a hit 7 times out of ten.

That being said,this guy will always be hated,because no one holds a grudge quite like a Sox fan does,I don't know the true cause for it,and I am not about to go on a search to find out,just like another chapter in the longest book never written about why Sox fans don't go to the games.

But then again what the hell do I know?

voodoochile
01-25-2002, 12:40 AM
Well, for the record, I didn't mean to say you stated it as fact. But it's been posted here 1000 times that Valentin has more range than Clayton when in truth, the only thing anyone could really say is that they think he has more range.

In the shortstop thread a couple of days ago, someone posted a breakdown of chances per 9 innings for all SS with over 800 chances. Royce came in pretty low and his number was 4.59C/9I, I believe.

Manos didn't qualify, because he only played 310 innings at SS last year, but he would have lead all SS with a 5.55C/9I (as I recall). Those numbers hold out for the last several years. Manos just gets to and makes more plays than Royce. In fact, if you extrapolate Jose's numbers over a whole season it comes to like 150 extra chances over the course of a year. Since a chance as it was presented is PO, A or E, you can see how Jose justifys the claim that he is a good defensive SS. Heck even if he had 30 more errors than Royce that would still mean he had an extra 120 A or PO over the course of a year. That doesn't even factor in the extra 30 outs he recorded in 2001 by turning extra DP's that Royce can only dream about with his very average arm.

You asked for stats to back it up, there it is...

You want one more reason to hate Royce? (not that I do, but he definitely needs to go, IMO.) The best position for Valentin to play is SS, period. He isn't a CF. He isn't a 3B. He isn't a DH. He is a SS, pure and simple. It is his best position. If Royce is playing there everyday, Jose can obviously NOT play there. Since Jose is the heart and soul of this team and definitely SHOULD be playing everyday, Royce has to go away.

None of this takes into account the HUGE difference in batting between the two...

I am done. So say what you want, I will not respond to more Royce/Jose debate.

voodoochile
01-25-2002, 12:47 AM
Sorry, those stats about Chances/9 innings were in Czalgosz "Interesting Stat" thread. Here is a link...

And Royce was 5th in the AL at 5.59. Jose would have lead all SS by almost .4C/9I if he had qualified.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6962&pagenumber=1

Kilroy
01-25-2002, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Sorry, those stats about Chances/9 innings were in Czalgosz "Interesting Stat" thread. Here is a link...

And Royce was 5th in the AL at 5.59. Jose would have lead all SS by almost .4C/9I if he had qualified.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6962&pagenumber=1

All I can say about that is the 4.59 TC/9 is Royce's low out of the last 6 years. Prior to 2001, Royce was better in this stat than Jose 3 of the 5 years I looked at (96-2000). Jose took 96 w/ 5.19 and 2000 w/ 5.35. Also, w/ the exception of last year when Jose didn't have 800 innings, the difference between the two was never more than .4/9. That could be the difference made by standing behind a fly ball pitcher 30 times a year instead of a ground ball pitcher.

Based on this stat, both Royce and Jose would be considered better SS than Vizquel and Jeter who posted lower TC/9 last season. And Jose came in a bit better than A-Rod.

Daver
01-25-2002, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


All I can say about that is the 4.59 TC/9 is Royce's low out of the last 6 years. Prior to 2001, Royce was better in this stat than Jose 3 of the 5 years I looked at (96-2000). Jose took 96 w/ 5.19 and 2000 w/ 5.35. Also, w/ the exception of last year when Jose didn't have 800 innings, the difference between the two was never more than .4/9. That could be the difference made by standing behind a fly ball pitcher 30 times a year instead of a ground ball pitcher.

Based on this stat, both Royce and Jose would be considered better SS than Vizquel and Jeter who posted lower TC/9 last season. And Jose came in a bit better than A-Rod.

And that is why you can't rate player's based on stats alone,you have to be able to see them play.

But then again what the hell do I know?

kermittheefrog
01-25-2002, 02:43 AM
Why I hate Clayton, let me count the words:

1) I believe his deftness with primary skill, defense, is overrated.

2) He took a spot in the lineup belonging to a more entertaining player and most importantly a player with a real bat.

3) There is no reason in hell for Jose Valentin to play a position other than short.

4) Clayton was one of the most highly paid players on a supposedly cash strapped team yet he didn't help worth a ****.

That's why I have personal hatred towards Clayton. I think the only answer is to move him barring some random metamorphasis into an elite player by The Choice.

FarWestChicago
01-25-2002, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Why I hate Clayton, let me count the words:

1) I believe his deftness with primary skill, defense, is overrated.

3) There is no reason in hell for Jose Valentin to play a position other than short.
The best part is there is no way any of the TSOTC (The Supporters Of The Choice) can accuse you, the Site Stathead, of not being grounded in stats. :smile:

voodoochile
01-25-2002, 11:04 AM
Jose took 96 w/ 5.19 and 2000 w/ 5.35. Also, w/ the exception of last year when Jose didn't have 800 innings, the difference between the two was never more than .4/9.

Still, that means about 60 extra chances a year. I am not saying Clayton is a bad defensive SS (though I do think he is overrated), but Jose is underrated based purely on his error totals. When you look at the big picture, Jose is at least an average SS defensively and a case can be made that he is one of the better ones if you look at the big picture AND actually watch him play.

For all the talk about how great Royce's defense is and that is the reason he should start over Jose, the facts just don't bear it out.

Also, can you honestly say that the stats you are seeing for the two in C/I aren't the beginning of a trend? Is Jose getting better at SS? Is age catching up with Royce? Is Jose just a better athlete and so the effects of age will affect him less? I think the answer to those questions is yes...

PaleHoseGeorge
01-25-2002, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Hey you watch it buddies. I'm a hardcore BASer but I haven't supported the choice for a second. I said from the beginning he was gonna screw the team over. I think a smart BASer would let a winning formula that doesn't fit the ideal stay in place while assembling a contingency plan if things fell apart.

You're an interesting case, Kermit. Most BASers who support the Choice do so because they believe Royce strengthens the team in an area of weakness: middle infield defense. As a stathead, you've evaluated that theory and declared it bogus. You've concluded Royce's defensive superiority isn't what others think it is. Furthermore, as a BASer, you're trying to maintain a balanced approach to fielding a champion. Thus Royce's obvious offensive weaknesses become all the more glaring and you conclude Valentin is the "better choice" (no pun intended) for shortstop.

It's perfectly rational BAS thinking, process-oriented, with a far different result than most other BASers would conclude.

Kudos to you.

FarmerAndy
01-25-2002, 11:58 AM
Defense isn't the only reason I support Clayton. When last we left our Sox, Clayton was hitting better than Manos, even in the clutch. Now, don't get me wrong, I thought it was B.S. that Manuel left Clayton in the line-up as long as he did at the begining of the 2001 season. He sucked so bad, and he should've lost the job. Manos should've been at short. BUT, regardless of that, Clayton put it together and was better at the plate than Manos in the second half. It should be his job to lose. If Royce looks bad in spring training, I'll be the first to say that Manos should be at short on opening day.

Manos was our hero in 2000
Royce was Satan for the first part of 2001

Right now, the past doesn't concern me. I want whoever is going to play better in 2002 to be playing there. When we finished in 2001, Royce was playing better. Believe it or not, I like Manos more than Royce. Without playing favorites though, I think Royce earned first dibs at short this year. If his performance isn't too good during the first week or so, then he should lose the job.

Kilroy
01-25-2002, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
Right now, the past doesn't concern me. I want whoever is going to play better in 2002 to be playing there. When we finished in 2001, Royce was playing better. Believe it or not, I like Manos more than Royce. Without playing favorites though, I think Royce earned first dibs at short this year. If his performance isn't too good during the first week or so, then he should lose the job.

Now there's a statment that makes sense. All the past range, errors, arm strength, or homeruns means exactly squat. Whoever's playing better THIS spring should get the job. That sounds pretty JWS to me.

Iwritecode
01-25-2002, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Now there's a statment that makes sense. All the past range, errors, arm strength, or homeruns means exactly squat. Whoever's playing better THIS spring should get the job. That sounds pretty JWS to me.

There are 2 reasons why Royce was better offensively than Jose was in the 2nd half last year.
1) Because he knew if he wasn't he was going to ride the bench. He realized this after Manuel did bench him for about a week when his average dropped to .100. Then he whined about not getting any PT.

2) Because Jose was playing with a sore hammy for most of the year.

Also, for as well as Royce did at the plate in the 2nd half, it only brought his season average up to around his career average.

kermittheefrog
01-25-2002, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Now there's a statment that makes sense. All the past range, errors, arm strength, or homeruns means exactly squat. Whoever's playing better THIS spring should get the job. That sounds pretty JWS to me.

Yeah that's great thinking, whoever does better in a month of exhibition games should be the shortstop. Does that mean you want Jason Dallearo there if he has the best spring?

FarmerAndy
01-25-2002, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


There are 2 reasons why Royce was better offensively than Jose was in the 2nd half last year.
1) Because he knew if he wasn't he was going to ride the bench. He realized this after Manuel did bench him for about a week when his average dropped to .100. Then he whined about not getting any PT.

2) Because Jose was playing with a sore hammy for most of the year.



Objection, Your Honor. SPECULATION.

dougs78
01-25-2002, 01:02 PM
1) Because he knew if he wasn't he was going to ride the bench. He realized this after Manuel did bench him for about a week when his average dropped to .100. Then he whined about not getting any PT.

This is a non-arguement. I mean if you really think its just a matter of Royce "flipping the switch," then this year he could just realize that he will be benched the whole time and bat .350 for the year. Bench him the first 10 games and then suddenly he'll start to play harder? They call it an average for a reason....it is a balance of what you do the whole year. Usually not so extreme, obviously.

2) Because Jose was playing with a sore hammy for most of the year.

If he had a sore hammy and couldn't be effective, then I am certainly glad he wasn't playing last year. Besides that fact, Royce was better offensively in the second half that most of our team...not just Jose. If he was that hot again, I think any good JWS (or BAS) would obviously say to play him somewhere.

FarWestChicago
01-25-2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
When last we left our Sox, Clayton was hitting better than Manos, even in the clutch .What did you put in your coffee this morning? Whatever it is, you should think about cutting back. :smile:

FarmerAndy
01-25-2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
What did you put in your coffee this morning? Whatever it is, you should think about cutting back. :smile:

I don't drink coffee. With two outs and ducks on the pond, Clayton hit better than anyone else on the team during the second half.

czalgosz
01-25-2002, 01:12 PM
Well, I did some deep searching into both my soul and into the numbers, and found two things about Royce Clayton, both of which were very surprising -

1) Clayton was a better hitter than I thought he was last season

2) Clayton was a lot worse defensively than I thought he was.

And Dougs is right, West, if you look at the numbers, Royce hit well in the clutch. He had an .838 OPS with runners in scoring position last season, well above his normal .708.

I'm not a fan of Royce Clayton. I don't think he's a very good ballplayer, and my research into him and people's anecdotes about him make me like him less. But right now he's the best option we have. This is more about my gut feeling that Joe Crede is going to be a bust than me thinking that Clayton is a great player.

Damn, if Jeff Liefer wasn't going to embarrass himself at third, I'd support him. Can we move Konerko over there or something?

kermittheefrog
01-25-2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
What did you put in your coffee this morning? Whatever it is, you should think about cutting back. :smile:

Saying stuff like that I think I know what he put in his coffee.

:partybus
We know what you're talkin about Kermit!

kermittheefrog
01-25-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Well, I did some deep searching into both my soul and into the numbers, and found two things about Royce Clayton, both of which were very surprising -

1) Clayton was a better hitter than I thought he was last season

2) Clayton was a lot worse defensively than I thought he was.

And Dougs is right, West, if you look at the numbers, Royce hit well in the clutch. He had an .838 OPS with runners in scoring position last season, well above his normal .708.

I'm not a fan of Royce Clayton. I don't think he's a very good ballplayer, and my research into him and people's anecdotes about him make me like him less. But right now he's the best option we have. This is more about my gut feeling that Joe Crede is going to be a bust than me thinking that Clayton is a great player.

Damn, if Jeff Liefer wasn't going to embarrass himself at third, I'd support him. Can we move Konerko over there or something?

I think whoever said Crede will be another Mike Lowell is right on. That's what we've got and I'll take it, Lowell can play. Crede should be an above average albeit not spectacular third baseman.

And do you really think PK would embarass himself less than Leifer?

FarWestChicago
01-25-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy


I don't drink coffee. With two outs and ducks on the pond, Clayton hit better than anyone else on the team during the second half. I don't know it this statement is factual or not. If it is, do you think it's a good idea to base predictions about the future on an older player's career half season? Do TSOTC really expect to see Super Choice in the future? I know you are a passionate group, but don't you think normal Royce is the more likely possibility?

FarmerAndy
01-25-2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I don't know it this statement is factual or not. If it is, do you think it's a good idea to base predictions about the future on an older player's career half season? Do TSOTC really expect to see Super Choice in the future? I know you are a passionate group, but don't you think normal Royce is the more likely possibility?

I know what you mean, and I agree. By the same token, Manos shouldn't simply get the job because he was our savior in 2000. Look, I know it's alot easier to like Manos. Frankly, Royce is a real pud. But more recently, we've had more production from Royce than Jose. Sure, you can argue that Manos didn't do as well because he was hurt and so on, but the bottom line is that when the season ended, Royce was playing better than Manos. I've said it a million times, the second Royce starts to suck, I'll be the first to say that we should pull the plug on him.

I don't have delusions, because of his hot second half in 2001, that Royce is going to turn into some sort of SUPER CHOICE. I just don't think we should pull the plug on a player until he starts to come back down to earth.

Kilroy
01-25-2002, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Yeah that's great thinking, whoever does better in a month of exhibition games should be the shortstop. Does that mean you want Jason Dallearo there if he has the best spring?

And I suppose you have a better method of deciding how a starting job should be earned?

Daver
01-25-2002, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


And I suppose you have a better method of deciding how a starting job should be earned?

Rock,paper,scissors?........Flip a coin?..............

FarmerAndy
01-25-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by daver


Rock,paper,scissors?........Flip a coin?..............


.....or maybe a karaoke contest. Whoever can deliver the best version of "Stranglehold" will be our 2002 starting shortstop!

dougs78
01-25-2002, 06:32 PM
This is has been a long and interesting post...Although I must say it looks to be about dead now. It really pains me to see it in this condition.... :)

FarWestChicago
01-25-2002, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
This is has been a long and interesting post...Although I must say it looks to be about dead now. It really pains me to see it in this condition.... :) :buddylee

Good point, Doug. Where did everybody go. I'm just getting warmed up!

Daver
01-25-2002, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago

Good point, Doug. Where did everybody go. I'm just getting warmed up! [/B]


I am still around,I am trying to decide if a good old fashioned bake off is the right way to decide who plays SS,or if it would be better to have a goat milking contest instead.:redneck

PaleHoseGeorge
01-25-2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Now there's a statment that makes sense. All the past range, errors, arm strength, or homeruns means exactly squat. Whoever's playing better THIS spring should get the job. That sounds pretty JWS to me.

Actually, it sounds pretty asinine. We've got plenty of reason to send Clayton packing. Why give his sorry ass another chance?

http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/chart/batting/4800.gif

Royce Clayton's hitting feats are the very definition of "garbage time". The further out of the race the Sox got, the higher his average got. That spurt in late-August coincided exactly with KW admitting in the press he had acquired Clayton strictly to trade him again, and had in fact been trying to move him since the previous December. The Lesser Choice was batting .230 at the time.

Then the 'roids kicked in.

Clayton .315 OBP, .393 SLG, .263 AVG
Valentin .328 OBP, .509 SLG, .258 AVG

Sure Kilroy, their offensive numbers are the same. And pigs can fly.

Any BASer or JWSer can agree on this.

Daver
01-25-2002, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Sure Kilroy, their offensive numbers are the same. And pigs can fly.

Any BASer or JWSer can agree on this.

It's becoming obvious that we can't PHG,which is why I am leaning toward the goat milking contest.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-25-2002, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by daver
It's becoming obvious that we can't PHG,which is why I am leaning toward the goat milking contest.

Suggesting Royce is Jose's equal with the bat doesn't compute from either a process-oriented or a results-oriented line of thinking. It's nothing but wishful thinking to suggest Royce's bat has earned him an equal shot for the shortstop's job.

Of course Royce is going to be handed the job this spring, so the point is moot. Manuel and Williams aren't going to sit $4 million of the boss's money on the bench. He'll have to kill somebody before he loses his starting job.

dougs78
01-25-2002, 09:25 PM
I am still around,I am trying to decide if a good old fashioned bake off is the right way to decide who plays SS,or if it would be better to have a goat milking contest instead.

LOL...you know I have to say that while a bake off does sound awful tempting, I am always partial to anything involving goat milking.

From a BAS perspective, I would have to give the edge in such a contest to Jose. He just seems to have the stronger forearms to more rapidly and successfully milk the goat.... But you never know....maybe Royce has that "just MILK" attitude and will run away with the contest.

Where's Herb when we need him? He'd have that SS position before we could say "milkman."

Daver
01-25-2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by dougs78


LOL...you know I have to say that while a bake off does sound awful tempting, I am always partial to anything involving goat milking.

From a BAS perspective, I would have to give the edge in such a contest to Jose. He just seems to have the stronger forearms to more rapidly and successfully milk the goat.... But you never know....maybe Royce has that "just MILK" attitude and will run away with the contest.

Where's Herb when we need him? He'd have that SS position before we could say "milkman."

:buddylee


Herb ain't got nothing on me,I'm a machine!

czalgosz
01-25-2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Of course Royce is going to be handed the job this spring, so the point is moot. Manuel and Williams aren't going to sit $4 million of the boss's money on the bench. He'll have to kill somebody before he loses his starting job.

I pointed out before that Steve Sax, who was Ron Schueler's first big acquisition and was probably more expensive in a relative sense, sat on the bench and collected big paychecks for all of the 1993 season. And, the Sox won the division that year. there was someone more worthy of the job in Joey Cora around, so he got the job, plain and simple. And Reinsdorf didn't step in and demand that Sax play or anything.

Clayton's big paychecks force the Sox to keep him on the 25-man roster, nothing more. It's a fallacy to assume otherwise. If the Sox had a better option, I'm sure he'd be playing. IMO, they don't have a better option without opening up a hole somewhere else.

FarWestChicago
01-25-2002, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by daver


:buddylee


Herb ain't got nothing on me,I'm a machine! :milk

Stuff it, Buddy! It's one thing when TSOTC say you're a better hitter than Manos. But, you aren't touching me in any milking contest!

PaleHoseGeorge
01-25-2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I pointed out before that Steve Sax, who was Ron Schueler's first big acquisition and was probably more expensive in a relative sense, sat on the bench and collected big paychecks for all of the 1993 season. And, the Sox won the division that year. there was someone more worthy of the job in Joey Cora around, so he got the job, plain and simple. And Reinsdorf didn't step in and demand that Sax play or anything.

Of course I would counter with the example of Jaime Navarro who continued to start ballgames for two additional years for the Sox after most everybody in baseball knew the guy was a total bust. In all fairness, Clayton did at least as much to help the team win as Navarro did. However, just like Clayton, the Sox couldn't give Navarro away without eating his salary. Thank goodness for Milwaukee's stupidity. Not only did they get suckered into taking John Snyder instead of cash, Schueler got them to toss in Valentin, too.

czalgosz
01-25-2002, 10:46 PM
Well, not that this is correct thinking, but the conventional wisdom is that you can't hide pitchers on your roster the way you can position players.

And, as awful as this is, Navarro wasn't blocking anyone in the system. As horrible as he was, the Sox minor-league pitchers weren't any better at the time.

God, looking at his numbers, he was even more horrible than I remember. I was in college at the time, so my memories of that period are kind of hazy -

1996 (CHC) - 15-12, 3.92 ERA, 1.34 WHIP

Pretty good, certainly above-average for a pitcher in 1996.

1997 (CHW) - 9-14, 5.79 ERA, 1.74 WHIP

Blech!, well it can't get any worse, or can it?

1998 (CHW) - 8-16, 6.36 ERA, 1.74 WHIP
1999 (CHW) - 8-13, 6.09 ERA, 1.74 WHIP

Well, at least he was consistent. You could count on him to be terrible every time out.

Kilroy
01-26-2002, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Clayton .315 OBP, .393 SLG, .263 AVG
Valentin .328 OBP, .509 SLG, .258 AVG

Sure Kilroy, their offensive numbers are the same. And pigs can fly.

Any BASer or JWSer can agree on this.

Hey now!! When did I say anything remotely like that? All I ever said was that the best player coming out of ST should get the job. As usual, I have to reiterate that I prefer Valentin.

Daver
01-26-2002, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Hey now!! When did I say anything remotely like that? All I ever said was that the best player coming out of ST should get the job. As usual, I have to reiterate that I prefer Valentin.

It depends on how is does in the goat milking contest.:redneck

cornball
01-26-2002, 10:19 AM
Great post George!!

Dont forget the third theory or the P.T. Barnum/Jerry Reinsdorf theory

A fool is born every second.....

FarmerAndy
01-26-2002, 11:43 AM
1999 Jose Valentine: .227 AVG .418 SLG .347 OBP
1999 Royce Clayton: .288 AVG .445 SLG .348 OBP

2000 Jose Valentine: .273 AVG .419 SLG .343 OBP
2000 Royce Clayton: .242 AVG .384 SLG .301 OBP

2001 Jose Valentine: .258 AVG .509 SLG .336 OBP
2001 Royce Clayton: .263 AVG .393 SLG .315 OBP


With out a doubt, Jose shows the better numbers here. BUT, they also DON'T show Jose beating Clayton by leaps and bounds. It's easy to see why alot of you prefer Manos, but some of you act as if Manos is on another level. I like Manos, and I also can see that his numbers are a little better. But c'mon, Manos isn't God when compared to Royce. I just don't see why it is so silly to think that the one who is currently performing better should be the one to play. Is it that ridiculous to play Clayton if he plays better than Jose in spring training? To me, it just makes sense to play whoever is performing better. If Jose plays better, play Jose. If Royce plays better, play Royce. When the 2001 season ended Royce was playing better, so I think he more than deserves a shot this spring. That's all.

Hey, maybe if Jose shaves off that Village People Mustache, I'll show more support in his corner. (Sorry, I was just getting tired of being so serious.)

PaleHoseGeorge
01-26-2002, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Hey now!! When did I say anything remotely like that? All I ever said was that the best player coming out of ST should get the job. As usual, I have to reiterate that I prefer Valentin.

Oops. My mistake. Sorry, Kilroy. It was Andy who wrote, "Defense isn't the only reason I support Clayton. When last we left our Sox, Clayton was hitting better than Manos, even in the clutch. Now, don't get me wrong, I thought it was B.S. that Manuel left Clayton in the line-up as long as he did at the begining of the 2001 season. He sucked so bad, and he should've lost the job. Manos should've been at short. BUT, regardless of that, Clayton put it together and was better at the plate than Manos in the second half. It should be his job to lose. If Royce looks bad in spring training, I'll be the first to say that Manos should be at short on opening day." I should have quoted him.

As great as Clayton hitting feats appeared in 2001, he was still inferior to Valentin. And if we're going to get into a discussion about who was best over a portion of a season, I would hasten to add Clayton was still sucking hind *** right up till late-August when Williams admitted it was a huge mistake to ever acquire him.

I totally disagree Clayton and Valentin are about the same offensively. If anything, the numbers show Valentin puts up his best numbers when he's given more at-bats, like 1996 and 2000.

BASers and JWSers can read statistics the same. It's how those numbers are acted upon that makes the difference.

kermittheefrog
01-26-2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
1999 Jose Valentine: .227 AVG .418 SLG .347 OBP
1999 Royce Clayton: .288 AVG .445 SLG .348 OBP

2000 Jose Valentine: .273 AVG .419 SLG .343 OBP
2000 Royce Clayton: .242 AVG .384 SLG .301 OBP

2001 Jose Valentine: .258 AVG .509 SLG .336 OBP
2001 Royce Clayton: .263 AVG .393 SLG .315 OBP


With out a doubt, Jose shows the better numbers here. BUT, they also DON'T show Jose beating Clayton by leaps and bounds. It's easy to see why alot of you prefer Manos, but some of you act as if Manos is on another level. I like Manos, and I also can see that his numbers are a little better. But c'mon, Manos isn't God when compared to Royce. I just don't see why it is so silly to think that the one who is currently performing better should be the one to play. Is it that ridiculous to play Clayton if he plays better than Jose in spring training? To me, it just makes sense to play whoever is performing better. If Jose plays better, play Jose. If Royce plays better, play Royce. When the 2001 season ended Royce was playing better, so I think he more than deserves a shot this spring. That's all.

Hey, maybe if Jose shaves off that Village People Mustache, I'll show more support in his corner. (Sorry, I was just getting tired of being so serious.)

What the **** are you talking about? With the exception of 1999, Royce's career year and Valentin's worst year (I mean this literally and you can check up on it, it's not just some anti-Choice hyperbole because you don't need hyperbole to say Choice sucks donkey balls) Valentin IS leaps and bounds better than Clayton. Clayton doesn't come close to Valentin's production. Valentin's OPSs the last two years are 845 and 834, you swapped the 1 and the 9 in Jose's 2000 slugging but even if you didn't an OBP differential of 42 points is a leap and a bound all put into one. That's about equal to the difference between the best team OBP in 2001, the Martiners and the worst, the Royals.

This has been a good fun thread but now the Choice guys are getting desperate and pulling things out there asses. It's one thing to argue that Jose sucks on D and Choice is worthwhile, I disagree but hey you do have some ground there but arguing these two on offensive merit is just stupid. When you start minimalizing the offensive difference between these two there is a combination of a few things going on:

1) You're desperate and you really wanna be right.

2) You don't really know what the numbers mean. A freaking 42 point OBP difference!

3) Your eyes have been gauged out by vultures. I mean do we really need OPS to know Jose vastly outhits Royce?

So I advise you Choicers either try to come up with some new spin on the defenesive arguement, shoot yourselves in the foot or drop things all together. You're basically saying ignore the fact that Clayton's numbers look like they do everyyear because he had a hot half season and Valentin didn't even though Valentin was more consistent and has always been a better hitter.

czalgosz
01-26-2002, 02:12 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that Jose Valentin belongs in the lineup for the 2002 White Sox. I have never said otherwise. I don't like Royce Clayton as a ballplayer, and it took me a while, but I finally got a good reason (out of Daver) as to why he is hated.

That said, I don't think that he's a candidate for "addition by subtraction", the way most of you feel. Three things make me feel that having Royce Clayton on the team isn't the worst thing ever -

1. My gut feeling that Joe Crede will be a bust. I know that a lot of you are comparing him to Mike Lowell, and I don't have any evidence to back this up, but he just doesn't strike me as a great ballplayer. I don't know, I just don't get a good feeling about him the way I did about Buerhle and Thomas and Ordonez when they were coming up. That's weak, I know, but there it is.

2. Jose Valentin's excellent play at third. I was worried that moving him around from center to short to third would screw up his offensive production, but it didn't. In some ways, he was more productive at the plate than he was in 2000. Also, he played very well at third base defensively, so I'm not worried about him there.

3. The lack of any other option on that side of the infield. If the Sox could clone Tony Graffanino, so that one Tony could play third and the other come off the bench, our problems will be solved. Until that day, however...

czalgosz
01-26-2002, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog



So I advise you Choicers either try to come up with some new spin on the defenesive arguement, shoot yourselves in the foot or drop things all together. You're basically saying ignore the fact that Clayton's numbers look like they do everyyear because he had a hot half season and Valentin didn't even though Valentin was more consistent and has always been a better hitter.

Well, I think his point is that in the second half of the 2001 season, Royce Clayton was a better hitter than Jose Valentin, which is undeniably true. That's not to say that Clayton is overall a better hitter than Valentin, but for four months last year, he was. I think his argument is that you go with the hot hand, regardless of the history or consistency of the ballplayers.

I personally don't agree with that theory, but that's just me. Personally, I don't like to compare the two ballplayers at all, and I think that by comparing Royce to Valentin, you're setting up a really big straw man. If Jose Valentin was the guy sitting on the bench because Clayton was in the lineup, I would be on a flight to Chicago with a pair of binoculars to do some spotting for daver and his bow. But it's Joe Crede sitting on the bench instead, and that doesn't bother me as much. That's all.

kermittheefrog
01-26-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, I think his point is that in the second half of the 2001 season, Royce Clayton was a better hitter than Jose Valentin, which is undeniably true. That's not to say that Clayton is overall a better hitter than Valentin, but for four months last year, he was. I think his argument is that you go with the hot hand, regardless of the history or consistency of the ballplayers.

I personally don't agree with that theory, but that's just me. Personally, I don't like to compare the two ballplayers at all, and I think that by comparing Royce to Valentin, you're setting up a really big straw man. If Jose Valentin was the guy sitting on the bench because Clayton was in the lineup, I would be on a flight to Chicago with a pair of binoculars to do some spotting for daver and his bow. But it's Joe Crede sitting on the bench instead, and that doesn't bother me as much. That's all.

I get it, Royce got the hot hand but what exactly does that mean? I say it's foolish to hand a player a job based on a half season when you have most of a career to look at. So if you think a half season is as good as or better than 10 big league seasons to judge what Royce can do for us so be it. Same if you think a month of exhibition games is more impotant than 10 seasons. It's one thing to scout out kids in spring like say Borchard, take a look see how his swing is how he responds and make a decision on whether he's ready but when you are talking about the Royce/Jose thing you know what you've got from both of these guys, no matter what they do in spring I doubt it's gonna give you more insight on who's better.

czalgosz
01-26-2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I get it, Royce got the hot hand but what exactly does that mean? I say it's foolish to hand a player a job based on a half season when you have most of a career to look at. So if you think a half season is as good as or better than 10 big league seasons to judge what Royce can do for us so be it. Same if you think a month of exhibition games is more impotant than 10 seasons. It's one thing to scout out kids in spring like say Borchard, take a look see how his swing is how he responds and make a decision on whether he's ready but when you are talking about the Royce/Jose thing you know what you've got from both of these guys, no matter what they do in spring I doubt it's gonna give you more insight on who's better.

You don't have to convince me, I totally agree. I think the real comparison is between Clayton and Crede, not Clayton and Valentin, because I think almost everyone here agrees that Valentin deserves a job.

kermittheefrog
01-26-2002, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


You don't have to convince me, I totally agree. I think the real comparison is between Clayton and Crede, not Clayton and Valentin, because I think almost everyone here agrees that Valentin deserves a job.

This Clayton/Valentin thing is getting silly, you can see the Choice backers scrambling to hold their ground as the logic behind it is squashed. Now as far as Clayton or Crede, even if your gut feeling is that Crede is a bust wouldn't you think he at least should get a chance because he has the potential to be better than Clayton? We do already know what we got in Clayton but that's not quite true with Joe.

czalgosz
01-26-2002, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


as far as Clayton or Crede, even if your gut feeling is that Crede is a bust wouldn't you think he at least should get a chance because he has the potential to be better than Clayton? We do already know what we got in Clayton but that's not quite true with Joe.

I would have loved it if Crede played every day back in August and September last season, but I am against giving rookies starting jobs out of spring training on principle. I've seen it backfire way too many times.

That's also why I don't want to see Borchard on the 2002 team, and I like Borchard.

kermittheefrog
01-26-2002, 03:18 PM
So when do you think rookies should join the team?

czalgosz
01-26-2002, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
So when do you think rookies should join the team?

Mid-season is the best time - late July, early August. That way, the pressure's not there to produce right away.

kermittheefrog
01-26-2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Mid-season is the best time - late July, early August. That way, the pressure's not there to produce right away.

I think the Sox are blowing their opportunity for some additional production if they don't start the season with one or two Joes in the lineup.

czalgosz
01-26-2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think the Sox are blowing their opportunity for some additional production if they don't start the season with one or two Joes in the lineup.

You could be right, but you could also see nothing out of those guys, and potentially ruin Borchard's career by holding him up to the flames too early.

Anyway, there's not enough room on the roster for both of those guys. One, maybe, but not two.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-26-2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I would have loved it if Crede played every day back in August and September last season, but I am against giving rookies starting jobs out of spring training on principle. I've seen it backfire way too many times.

This is an interesting point, because Manuel passed on his chance to play Joe down the stretch. As a results-oriented JWSer, this decision drives me nuts. By September 1, the Sox weren't going anywhere in 2001, so solid JWS thinking dictates getting prepared for 2002. Manuel's decision to bench Crede now leaves us guessing what Crede can do.

I can see a BASer being pissed about Manuel's decision, too. Process-oriented thinking would dictate using the "free games" of September to fit new pieces into the championship puzzle. To this way of thinking, Manuel blew it.

My only conclusion can be Manuel (and Williams) have no plans for using Joe Crede. It's this sort of senseless thinking that doubtlessly led them make make the trade for Clayton last December, after spending $6 million to sign Valentin to a 3-year deal.

If Manuel and Williams have "learned their lessons" (as Reinsdorf claimed in his letter to season ticketholders), I fail to see it so far.

czalgosz
01-26-2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


This is an interesting point, because Manuel passed on his chance to play Joe down the stretch. As a results-oriented JWSer, this decision drives me nuts. By September 1, the Sox weren't going anywhere in 2002, so solid JWS thinking dictates getting prepared for 2003. Manuel's decision to bench Crede now leaves us guessing what Crede can do.

I can see a BASer being pissed about Manuel's decision, too. Process-oriented thinking would dictate using the "free games" of September to fit new pieces into the championship puzzle. To this way of thinking, Manuel blew it.

My only conclusion can be Manuel (and Williams) have no plans for using Joe Crede. It's this sort of senseless thinking that doubtlessly led them make make the trade for Clayton last December, after spending $6 million to sign Valentin to a 3-year deal.

If Manuel and Williams have "learned their lessons" (as Reinsdorf claimed in his letter to season ticketholders), I fail to see it so far.

For once, George, we are in total agreement.

At this point, I wouldn't mind if they did trade Crede. They probably would be able to get something good for him, and he won't do the Sox much good sitting on the bench or playing in AAA.

Jerry_Manuel
01-26-2002, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
As a results-oriented JWSer, this decision drives me nuts. By September 1, the Sox weren't going anywhere in 2002, so solid JWS thinking dictates getting prepared for 2003. Manuel's decision to bench Crede now leaves us guessing what Crede can do.

My only conclusion can be Manuel (and Williams) have no plans for using Joe Crede.

I assume you mean the Sox weren't going anywhere in 2001, so they should have gotten ready for 2002.

I'm guessing the thinking was that Crede isn't going to be on the team in 2002, so why play him? I'm sure by that time Williams knew he couldn't move Clayton, and that Valentin had to play 3rd. So Joe is SOL once again.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-26-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
I assume you mean the Sox weren't going anywhere in 2001, so they should have gotten ready for 2002.

My bad. Yes, I meant 2001. I went back and fixed it. I'm not even sure how much Crede would be worth in trade. The fact the Sox held him in the minors for three seasons when 3B was clearly open, would tend to hurt his value.