12-24-2009, 10:54 AM
<!--quoteo(post=72916:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:43 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72903:date=Dec 24 2009, 12:28 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 24 2009, 12:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72897:date=Dec 23 2009, 08:43 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 23 2009, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How is $ per win a BS stat in evaluating a GM's performance? If we were trying to use it for just one season, then sure, I'd agree with you. But we're talking about 5 years of underperformance compared to peer-type-teams.
Again, I sincerely have trouble wrapping my head the counterargument to that. That's not a dig - I just don't get it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll take a swing - just for fun...
Occams Razor
The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.
Players performance is must more directly tied to wins and losses than GMs skills. Money is the best way to get the players most likely to be the best. Thus, the team spending the most money is most likely to be the best. $/win assumes too many things - first, that all dollars spent are equal. The last 40mm that the Red Sawx spend is worth MUCH more than the first 120mm. That's what gets them out of bad moves, allows a ridiculous bench, and allows for them to spend over slot on multiple pitching prospects per year which allows for them to build the cheap high quality pen that they have.
Now my personal opinion is that Hendry is a good talent evaluator and a bad money manager. Net/Net...he's a decent GM. I'd have no problem if the Cubs canned him. They could replace him with a top talent young GM in the waiting. There are many in MLB organizations currently playing 2nd fiddle. The Sox have one who I hope gets a job someday soon - Rick Hahn. KB, you'd like him, he's your type. Kim Ng is rumored to be a fantastic scout and to really understand the business. Cherrington is Theo's boy - and maybe the answer.
Who knows....really...there is so much that happens between a GM making the right moves and them resulting in the right outcome...hard to say if one person can improve the odds of that playing out right. I still think a lot of it is "luck"...Bradley is good or Bradley is bad. Soriano gives 3-4 good year or not. Z is healthy and sane or not. Soto is good or sucks... Just hard to pin this all on Hendry.
Like in most sports, coaches and GMs get too much credit when it goes well, and too much blame when it doesn't. I think Hendry is an illustration of that. He got a lot of credit for the back to back post season trips...and may be getting a lot of blame for the post season crashes and last year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I never suggested that $ per win is the only way to evaluate a GM. That would be ridiculous.
Second of all, and more importantly, I said that it's the best way to evaluate a GM against PEER teams - i.e., teams that spend comparable amounts of money.
I mean, freaking hello: if two teams spend the same amount of money, and one team consistently wins more than the other over a stretch of SEVERAL years ... what's the differing factor? It's the guy making the decisions on HOW to spend that money.
What am I missing here? Somebody freaking agree with this fundamental, foundational, and basic point.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it's in how the money is spent. You can't act like Hendry is the only person who makes mistakes though. Cherp just identified several moves the Red Sox have made that are very unfavorable. They can be seen as worse than some of the more recently maligned Cubs moves. (Lugo situation is worse than Miles situation, Matzuzaka is worse than Fukudome, Soriano is still much worse than Lowell but they're in the same stratosphere).
Nobody is saying he's perfect, but to act like guys like Epstein are on a completely different level than Hendry isn't fair. Also, I think this...
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I still think a lot of it is "luck"...Bradley is good or Bradley is bad. Soriano gives 3-4 good year or not. Z is healthy and sane or not. Soto is good or sucks... Just hard to pin this all on Hendry.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Has more to do with $/wins than anything. Sure, the GM plays percentages with creating the roster, but sometimes a GM can only put themselves in the best position possible and hope for the best outcome.
Again, I sincerely have trouble wrapping my head the counterargument to that. That's not a dig - I just don't get it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll take a swing - just for fun...
Occams Razor
The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.
Players performance is must more directly tied to wins and losses than GMs skills. Money is the best way to get the players most likely to be the best. Thus, the team spending the most money is most likely to be the best. $/win assumes too many things - first, that all dollars spent are equal. The last 40mm that the Red Sawx spend is worth MUCH more than the first 120mm. That's what gets them out of bad moves, allows a ridiculous bench, and allows for them to spend over slot on multiple pitching prospects per year which allows for them to build the cheap high quality pen that they have.
Now my personal opinion is that Hendry is a good talent evaluator and a bad money manager. Net/Net...he's a decent GM. I'd have no problem if the Cubs canned him. They could replace him with a top talent young GM in the waiting. There are many in MLB organizations currently playing 2nd fiddle. The Sox have one who I hope gets a job someday soon - Rick Hahn. KB, you'd like him, he's your type. Kim Ng is rumored to be a fantastic scout and to really understand the business. Cherrington is Theo's boy - and maybe the answer.
Who knows....really...there is so much that happens between a GM making the right moves and them resulting in the right outcome...hard to say if one person can improve the odds of that playing out right. I still think a lot of it is "luck"...Bradley is good or Bradley is bad. Soriano gives 3-4 good year or not. Z is healthy and sane or not. Soto is good or sucks... Just hard to pin this all on Hendry.
Like in most sports, coaches and GMs get too much credit when it goes well, and too much blame when it doesn't. I think Hendry is an illustration of that. He got a lot of credit for the back to back post season trips...and may be getting a lot of blame for the post season crashes and last year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I never suggested that $ per win is the only way to evaluate a GM. That would be ridiculous.
Second of all, and more importantly, I said that it's the best way to evaluate a GM against PEER teams - i.e., teams that spend comparable amounts of money.
I mean, freaking hello: if two teams spend the same amount of money, and one team consistently wins more than the other over a stretch of SEVERAL years ... what's the differing factor? It's the guy making the decisions on HOW to spend that money.
What am I missing here? Somebody freaking agree with this fundamental, foundational, and basic point.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it's in how the money is spent. You can't act like Hendry is the only person who makes mistakes though. Cherp just identified several moves the Red Sox have made that are very unfavorable. They can be seen as worse than some of the more recently maligned Cubs moves. (Lugo situation is worse than Miles situation, Matzuzaka is worse than Fukudome, Soriano is still much worse than Lowell but they're in the same stratosphere).
Nobody is saying he's perfect, but to act like guys like Epstein are on a completely different level than Hendry isn't fair. Also, I think this...
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I still think a lot of it is "luck"...Bradley is good or Bradley is bad. Soriano gives 3-4 good year or not. Z is healthy and sane or not. Soto is good or sucks... Just hard to pin this all on Hendry.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Has more to do with $/wins than anything. Sure, the GM plays percentages with creating the roster, but sometimes a GM can only put themselves in the best position possible and hope for the best outcome.