Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Yankees interested in Zambrano?
#76
<!--quoteo(post=72897:date=Dec 23 2009, 08:43 PM:name=Ace)-->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.
Reply
#77
Wow...Cherp ftw?
Reply
#78
<!--quoteo(post=72904:date=Dec 23 2009, 11:43 PM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Dec 23 2009, 11:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Wow...Cherp ftw?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


ftw?
Reply
#79
For...the...win. I complemented you, which is a bannable offense.
Reply
#80
<!--quoteo(post=72906:date=Dec 23 2009, 11:50 PM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Dec 23 2009, 11:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->For...the...win. I complemented you, which is a bannable offense.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

ah...ok...got it. I've seen FTW before and never knew what it meant.

Hendry aint perfect - but Hendry is not the reason the Cubs didn't win a WS in the past 3 years. He is a part of the reason they had a shot in 2 of the past 3.
Reply
#81
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

actually, on this board? Not so much. Standing rules are if the Cubs lose, it's all Hendry's fault. If they win, it's because he had a huge payroll. There is no credit.

Otherwise, great post. It's nice not being the only guy having to make these arguments.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Reply
#82
<!--quoteo(post=72903:date=Dec 24 2009, 12:28 AM:name=cherp)-->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. Nor did I suggest it was appropriate for year to year. That would be ridiculous, because year to year, luck reigns supreme.

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.
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.
Reply
#83
<!--quoteo(post=72909:date=Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

actually, on this board? Not so much. Standing rules are if the Cubs lose, it's all Hendry's fault. If they win, it's because he had a huge payroll. There is no credit.

Otherwise, great post. It's nice not being the only guy having to make these arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


What am I? Chopped liver?

I do want to make a point here as well. Everyone blasts BT and myself for being Hendry supporters all the time. I think people don't understand that it's not the fact that we like Hendry. I can't speak 100% for BT, but I can tell you that I just think Hendry is the easy target and get's blamed for problems when really... it's no one single person that caused us to get swept in the playoffs in 2007/2008. Or to underachieve this last year. I think cherp illustrated this point pretty well. Good stuff cherp.
Reply
#84
<!--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.
Reply
#85
<!--quoteo(post=72918:date=Dec 24 2009, 09:54 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72916:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:43 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

None of those are points that are oppositional to what I've said. In fact I explicitly accepted those points! ROOOOAAARRRS JUST FREAKING AGREE WITH ME ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ACE ANGRY! ACE SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.
Reply
#86
You said the team that wins more consistently (Red Sox) has a person making better decisions than the team not winning as consistently (Cubs).

I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.
Reply
#87
<!--quoteo(post=72920:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You said the team that wins more consistently (Red Sox) has a person making better decisions than the team not winning as consistently (Cubs).

I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If you were talking about ONE OR TWO seasons, I would understand. But we're talking about FIVE YEARS. How is this unclear?

Teams that have spent comparably - COMPARABLY - over the past FIVE SEASONS have generally - GENERALLY - won more games than the Cubs.

It can't all be luck. There is a single common factor. And it even holds true when you ACTUALLY REVIEW Hendry's moves over the last five years. It's not just metrics - it's metrics backing up what we've all observed with our eyes.

I'm literally going insane.
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.
Reply
#88
<!--quoteo(post=72922:date=Dec 24 2009, 09:05 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72920:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You said the team that wins more consistently (Red Sox) has a person making better decisions than the team not winning as consistently (Cubs).

I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If you were talking about ONE OR TWO seasons, I would understand. But we're talking about FIVE YEARS. How is this unclear?

Teams that have spent comparably - COMPARABLY - over the past FIVE SEASONS have generally - GENERALLY - won more games than the Cubs.

It can't all be luck. There is a single common factor.

I'm literally going insane.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The Dodgers spent more comparably than Boston and had more similar results Ace.
Reply
#89
<!--quoteo(post=72923:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:08 AM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 24 2009, 10:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72922:date=Dec 24 2009, 09:05 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72920:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You said the team that wins more consistently (Red Sox) has a person making better decisions than the team not winning as consistently (Cubs).

I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If you were talking about ONE OR TWO seasons, I would understand. But we're talking about FIVE YEARS. How is this unclear?

Teams that have spent comparably - COMPARABLY - over the past FIVE SEASONS have generally - GENERALLY - won more games than the Cubs.

It can't all be luck. There is a single common factor.

I'm literally going insane.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The Dodgers spent more comparably than Boston and had more similar results Ace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And? Am I in freaking bizarro world?

That supports an assertion, if someone wanted to make it, that the Red Sox have had a better front office than the Dodgers over that time period. Does it prove it? Of course not. Does it support it? Of course.

Still - I'm going insane.
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.
Reply
#90
I am heading out of town soon, so I need to wrap this up - and I can't be bashing my head in the whole trip, so let me try to phrase this in a way we can all agree, even if we disagree on the particulars.

If you have two teams, and over a long enough period of time (we can debate how long it has to be before it stops being "luck"), Team A has won 10 more games per season (again, we can debate how many games) than Team B, but the two teams have had the same payroll (again, we can debate how close they have to be to be the "same"), that SUGGESTS that Team A has a better front office than Team B.

I cannot fathom anyone disagreeing with this BASIC proposition. We can debate all those little internal things (and I suspect that's what you guys are doing), but the BASIC premise must be true.
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)