It's a solid piece. He brings up good points in addressing both sides. (Joe Morgan and the "traditionalists" are more afraid than anything, and "sabermetricians" can't quantify everything.) But I would be curious to see Hamrahi discuss how important each one is. 60%-40%? 50/50? Or is that something, too, that can't be quantified?

I liked the article. It is basically how I view the game. I enjoy knowing a little bit more than the 'average' fan but do not even try to compete with the deeper thinkers.

Everything he brought up is what sabermetrics is all about.

If something is quantifiable or qualifiable to a reasonable degree, that all goes into sabermetrics. His knees buckle? Sabermetrics. Heart of lion? Sabermetrics. Takes a check swing on a 3-0 count? Sabermetrics. Likes to party at night? SABERMETICS!

It's all about constructing a model of reality, and everything is reality.

Some things are just too darn hard to model, like "clubhouse chemistry", since we have very little idea how one human being will interact with another. This all goes into the sabermetric model. But, in the case of clubhouse chemistry, sabermetrics will give it a weight of near zero, since it's uncertainty level is close to infinity.

Stats vs. Scouts: Do We Need to Choose Just One?

No. Next question?

Stats vs. Scouts: Do We Need to Choose Just One?

Obviously, we do. Every team that uses stats and every fan that enjoys stats has stated unequivocally that there is no place in baseball for scouts, who should all be summarily executed.

My problem is that Michael Lewis portrays statistical modeling as THE method to achieve success in major league baseball. He intentionally leaves out the fact that scouts, coaches, teammates, and family all play a part in how a player performs, whether it can be objectively measured or not.

Certainly, many people may be reading Lewis to be saying this, but this is not what Lewis says. I view his stories to show that statistical analysis is a new and valuable tool to help evaluate players. And there's no doubt that he feels that teams that employ these methods enjoy an advantage in scouting players over those that don't. But the elimination of scouts as a road to success is something he doesn't portray, only that scouting has changed to include performance scouting methods. Take for example the story of David "the Creature" Beck. Grady Fuson signs Beck sight-unseen. And though Lewis portrays Beck as a success in the book, he is no longer in baseball. He's a clear bust, and any scout who saw him pitch in college could have told you he would never make it to the big leagues. But, what really happened in this story was not a failure of stats but the failure of a scout. In the book, Paul tells Fuson to send a scout to watch this guy, not to sign him. Fuson did not do this. He inquired about him, but he did not take a look. Later, Fuson tells Paul he signed "your guy." Paul responds, "he's not my guy, I just told you to take a look at him." (quotes are not accurate but are close enough to the spirit of the actual words, I don't have the book in front of me). To Paul, the stats were a tool that this guy was worth looking into, not to sign him. The A's had clearly scouted and met with all of the players taken in the draft, such as Jeremy Brown. And the team cared about their backgrounds outside of baseball. The "put a Milo on him" discussion makes this pretty obvious.

I would also like to add that if anyone does not deserve a pass on praising one method at the expense of another it's Shanks. His message is not that the Braves win with a different method, but that the "Moneyball" way is wrong. I know you met with him, but I'm curious if you read the book yet. I think his attitude spoils what would be a good book about the Braves. And his chapter on Moneyball contains factual errors that he uses to buttress his claims. It's quite a spectacle, and Bill should be held accountable for his mis-statements.

By "you", I meant Joe. I was curious if he would comment on this. Sorry.

Michael Lewis' problem, and this is supported by Shanks, is that he gives every armchair sabermetrician the false hope that he can run a major league baseball team.

I'm not convinced that any given sabermetrician, whether sitting in his armchair or not, believes he can run a major league baseball team. Holding that belief stands a long ways away from using the analytical tools that have appeared over the past decades to rightly criticize what a team gets up to. That some fans might believe they can run a major league team does not in any way subtract from the value and power of these analytical techniques.

That some fans might believe they can run a major league team does not in any way subtract from the value and power of these analytical techniques.

Very, very well said.

I'm not convinced that any given sabermetrician, whether sitting in his armchair or not, believes he can run a major league baseball team.

And yet you have Primates, even one of the brighter Primates, that believe 80% of the people on this board would do a better job than most GMs.

You have one of the better practitioners that, taht firmly believes that most GMs are idiots.

I'm not sure who you're "any given sabermetrican" may be, but there are enough people that do feel far too empowered by a reading a few statistics.

That will always create a counterforce that shows both disdain and, as will be discussed infra, the need to show the misuse of any given metric.

Holding that belief stands a long ways away from using the analytical tools that have appeared over the past decades to rightly criticize what a team gets up to. (emphasis yours).

That is the crux of the issue. And before I discuss that, let me point out something very important.

One of the problems in dealing with the religious arm of the sabermetric community is that they frequently will move the argument into pure sophistry.

Now here is the perfect example. In #3, Tango will define the craft as exploratory. That is perfectly fine for Tango, because he then does not use the craft as a sword. He will very decidely talk with you about an issue. He will not use terms to paint camps.

But in #8, you paint the craft as "analytical methods." That is still pretty broad, as the making of a decision using observation and experience would be an analytical method. Therefore, there would be no one who did not use "analytical methods" Nevertheless, I presume by your post, you aren't just attempting to make a dishonest characterization of some unstated opponent. You are specifically referring to the use of tangible statistical models. As I don't recally any specific experience with you that may be fair. You may be consistent.

But then looks look at #9. Here is a person on record saying that "sabermetics is the search for the truth" Now that would seem to encompass nuclear physics and theology. But now there is this specific endorsement of what should be seen as the "use of [tangible statistic models] to criticize" So now the use of the term is a way to both exclude anyone who has a differing opinion, e.g. Joe Morgan is scouts based, even though he would fit both Tango's and zilienski's defintion of sabermetrician. And there is no definition of what makes one in this Joe Morgan camp. Yet if anyone opposes my thoughts, they are in this camp. Yet my camp is unassailble, we seach for the truth (and you do not)."

So at the end of the day, I find this to be all such empty rhetoric.

Now back to the objections of your statement. That is the point, when someone is using a specific statistical measure to criticize a specific team, then the objection is often that the particular measure is not the basis for criticism. IOW, people like Joe Morgan do not think that the small subset of information you are presenting with that statistic is the proper basis for criticism.

When teams set up plans that rely heavily on tangible statistical input, then many times the criticism is based on how they weigh that information. When teams set up systems that aren't even based on statistical information, and they are lauded for their saberness, the criticism is that its a bunch of hooey and snake oil. Then its no different than crystal balls, superstitious betting systems, and numerology.

No one eschews statistics in the way that you would paint it. Everyone uses numbers in some evaluative sense. Its all about the weighing of the information of the statistic. Most of the statistics that comprise the present body of sabermetric research are only useful in preselected samples and only over large periods of time. Most also do not tell you the causative properties of the event.

There is virtually nothing in that body of work that would tell you, or give you the basis for determining whether Jose Macais should start on any given day. There is nothing to tell you whether anything has changed about a particular actor that would allow them to meet a particular projection.

There is a basis to show the existence of certain skills. Over a long enough period you could tell if a particular organization eschewed those skills in favor of other skills.

What the present body of research does do any excellent job at is determining past value.

What usually promotes a response is when such a decisive response is made about a decision where the tools do not provide enough information to make such a decisive response.

For instance, #9, was perfectly willing to go on record to talk about the stupidity of using Ray King instead of John Smoltz to pitch to Bonds. He was willing to state how it was undenialbe and irrefutable that Smoltz was the better pitcher. Well in that instance, Smoltz went on the DL 2 days later. I doubt in that interval Smoltz was a better pitcher than Ray King, and it certainly wasn't indeniable or irrefutable. Much the same can be said for the cult followings of players like Jack Cust.

That some fans might believe they can run a major league team does not in any way subtract from the value and power of these analytical techniques.

That is the issue. What is the value and power of "these analytical techniques" If you take at random, any given strong advocate of sabermetrics, I opine they significantly overvalue the power of these techniques. Now you can call these set of people anything you want, but that is the set that usually triggers a response of disdain.

Re: #10

[I]I'm not sure who you're "any given sabermetrican" may be, but there are enough people that do feel far too empowered by a reading a few statistics.[/I]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My ‘any given sabermetrician’ refers to the abstraction, all sabermetricians. In short, it refers to the collective noun, sabermetrician, and thus to everyone (every particular to which the noun refers) who practice sabermetrics.

As for some people feeling ‘empowered by reading a few statistics,’ my reply: Well, knowledge is power, isn’t it!

[I]And yet you have Primates, even one of the brighter Primates, that believe 80% of the people on this board would do a better job than most GMs.

You have one of the better practitioners that, taht firmly believes that most GMs are idiots.[/I]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is surely possible that most GMs are idiots and that some Primates would do a better job — that is, make better decisions — than these GMs do make, all other things being equal. There is, however, no feasible way to test this claim because most Primates would never find themselves running a major league team.

[I]One of the problems in dealing with the religious arm of the sabermetric community is that they frequently will move the argument into pure sophistry.[/I]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What religious arm?

[I]But in #8, you paint the craft as "analytical methods." That is still pretty broad, as the making of a decision using observation and experience would be an analytical method.[/I]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committing oneself to observation and experience would likely generate a descriptive method.

[I]But then looks look at #9. Here is a person on record saying that "sabermetics is the search for the truth" Now that would seem to encompass nuclear physics and theology.[/I]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep. Defining sabermetrics as a search for truth would include as related enterprises nuclear physics and theology since they are also defined, in part, as searches for truth. Do you have a problem with that assertion? If so, why? What do you believe sabermetricians should search for? Falsity?

[I]But now there is this specific endorsement of what should be seen as the "use of [tangible statistic models] to criticize" So now the use of the term is a way to both exclude anyone who has a differing opinion, e.g. Joe Morgan is scouts based, even though he would fit both Tango's and zilienski's defintion of sabermetrician. And there is no definition of what makes one in this Joe Morgan camp. Yet if anyone opposes my thoughts, they are in this camp. Yet my camp is unassailble, we seach for the truth (and you do not)."[/I]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will need to clarify and expand on what you wrote in this passage. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. For instance, I’m unsure how Joe Morgan would fit my definition of a sabermetrician?

[I]So at the end of the day, I find this to be all such empty rhetoric.[/I]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you judging what you had just written or what you believe sabermetricians do and say?

Finally, since I found it difficult to make clear sense of the rest of your post, I’m going to let my reply go for the moment. Feel free to clarify and develop what you wrote.

My ‘any given sabermetrician’ refers to the abstraction, all sabermetricians. In short, it refers to the collective noun, sabermetrician, and thus to everyone (every particular to which the noun refers) who practice sabermetrics.


I guess my giving you the benefit of the doubt is misplaced, because we are right back to the sophistry. That would mean that everyone is by definition a sabermetrician, in which case your statement is false, because there are some sabermetricians that do feel they could run a ball team far better than most.

So your entire earlier post is just sophistic nonesense, and your subsequent post is more of the same. You are far more interested in creating inconsistent defintions to create a " we are better than them" argument.

It is surely possible that most GMs are idiots and that some Primates would do a better job — that is, make better decisions — than these GMs do make, all other things being equal.

LOL, its possible that Bonds gets his power based on radiation from Mars. Its not very likely. I've given you a specific quantification and you still dive into such nonesense. Now you see why there is a backlash.

As for some people feeling ‘empowered by reading a few statistics,’ my reply: Well, knowledge is power, isn’t it!


Now, power is power. Knowledge can create a situation where you can have an advantage over another. That advantage will have limitations. I little cliche does very little in presenting a point or responding to a criticism.

But the knowledge of any given stat is rarely going to give you any power to make a decision, much less a better decision than someone who has far more information, and knowledge than you do.

There is, however, no feasible way to test this claim because most Primates would never find themselves running a major league team.


That is a very good thing.

What religious arm?

Those that ridicule and eschew others because they believe their little knowledge base makes them superior to those who don't weigh the information the same way.

Find a sportswriter thread and you can pick them off like fish in the barrel. Based on your comportment and diving into sophistry, I believe you very well be one among this population.

Committing oneself to observation and experience would likely generate a descriptive method.


Then sabermetrics does not define any population.

Do you have a problem with that assertion?

Yes, its totally meaningless. It describes everything and nothing all at the same time. Physics is not defined as "the search for the truth". "Theology" is not defined as the search for the truth. It has no bounds. Its value as a term is useless. There is no one who doesn't search for the truth.

What do you believe sabermetricians should search for? Falsity?


It can search for whatever it wants. I could care less. And if you want to get all sophistic, there is great value in searching for the false. In fact, that is the basis of much mathematical knowledge.

Moreover, your great practitioner Steve Treder does seach for "falsity" in most of his attempts to be analytical. He seaches for the falsity in the statement that current bullpen deployment models are efficient. He makes no effort to search for an alternative truthful statement. His own research is about negation.

If you create definitional constructs like you have, there is no one to rail against. Ringolsby, Morgan, et. al. aren't part of your group. There is no anti-sabermetric camp because by defintion there cannot be one. If you have an issue, you need to bound that issue.

I can come out and say that I think Treder is full of sh1t. I think that a good number of posters here are wrong and completely overvalue and DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND the statistical information they post. I can say that Cadbury up there has no knowledge on how to analyze anything except classical statistics, and is unable to tell when using such methods will lead to erroneous conclusions.

Feel free to clarify and develop what you wrote.

LOL, I have a much better idea, tell me who isn't a sabermetrician and why they aren't. That should be pretty interesting.

I guess my giving you the benefit of the doubt is misplaced, because we are right back to the sophistry. That would mean that everyone is by definition a sabermetrician, in which case your statement is false, because there are some sabermetricians that do feel they could run a ball team far better than most.

Enough.

And I should note, based on some wisdom from Srul. Tango is doing exactly what he should do. He identifies himself as a practitioner in the art of sabermetrics, and he does not want to see himself wrongly devalued because other self-styled sabermetricians misuse information.

Which is fine, I can accept his defintion for the science. I can accept him as a practioner of that art. But there is a definable subset of people who style themselves as practitioners of that art, who just aren't adding anything to the collective knowledge, and who will generate disdain by others.

If Tango wants to define those, who improperly use information to reach erroneous conclusions, he may do so. I'll even use that term on this site. But what you can't get past, is that such a large and vocal number of these people style themselves as sabermetricians that society has placed a different definition on the art. Namely the more popular definition may be, "Sabermetrics is the analysis of baseball through objective evidence, especially baseball statistics." with it commonly moving toward, "Sabermetrics is the analysis of baseball through baseball statistics."

The thought that decisions must be made on purely objective criteria, or even more limiting, criteria that has been reduced to statistical output will always have a limited utility.

So society has drawn a line between those that would make most of their decisions based on high valuation of statistics, and those that would make most of their decisions based on high valuation of observational information.

Now somewhere between those societal definitions are people like Tango who will try to discern the proper weighing criteria of both sets of information. If he can quantify, I am of the opinion he will find far more value in those things which are not presently metricized (but could be metricized in the future).

You should now the use and limitations of things. If I choose at random, your any given sabermetrician, I'll find there ability to do this is very limited.

JC Bradbury had an interview with Farhan Zaidi on his blog about a month ago. Zaidi is an economist who works for the A's.

I found this Q & A quite interesting:

JC: Are there any GMs on other teams that are just plain suckers?

FZ: Absolutely not. Working in baseball has given me a newfound respect for GM’s in baseball. It takes a lot to rise through the ranks of the industry to one of those 30 positions. Fans and media like to deride some GM’s as being clueless, but from what I’ve seen, being a clueless GM is an oxymoron of the highest order.

from what I’ve seen, being a clueless GM is an oxymoron of the highest order.

What about being a clueless former GM?

What about being a clueless former GM?

There probably were less intelligent GM's in the old days; back when baseball was run more like a country club than a business. IIRC, Dick O'Connell was the first competent administrator for the Red Sox for years. Sone guys got their jobs through family connections. One skill that I think a GM needs is salesmanship; which doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence. It probably also requires a dedication bordering on workaholic.

I don't think many salespeople or workaholics post on Primer.

I don't think many salespeople or workaholics post on Primer.

No, but lots of a different kind of -aholic post here. And I don't mean choco-.

An alcoholic is like a chocoholic, but for booze.

And yet you have Primates, even one of the brighter Primates, that believe 80% of the people on this board would do a better job than most GMs.

Oh come on, you know that was a throwaway line after some disagreeable signing that just about everyone actively distanced themselves from. Including just about everyone who I had any prior inclination to respect and take seriously. Just because some primate posted that, once, doesn't meant it's the prevailing opinion, or even a relevent minority.

Now, I'm sure that 80% of primates would know not to make some stupid ass big money ####### like $75 million for an injured Mags with two solid corner OF already signed and a CF prospect that just tore apart AA. Or $20 million for Eric Milton. Or Pat Meares or Jeff Hammonds or Darren Dreifort. I mean, all those deals were insane from day one, and reek of obvious incompetence. Might work out might not like Glaus or Lowe or trading Hudson and Mulder or even Kazmir for Zambrano -- I might criticize (or praise), but I don't believe at all that I could be certain of doing any better.

If that was all there was to being a GM, keeping yourself from royally ####### your team with huge contracts for shitty players, then yeah, 80% of primates could do a lot better than some of the guys currently out there. But we all know there's more to the job, and that we probably wouldn't do all so well, at least without a lot more hands on experience.

An alcoholic is like a chocoholic, but for booze.

I thought the derivation was from "shopaholic."

I think a lot of us might have the opinion that if we were given some sort of job with veto power over what the actual GM does...and we exercised that veto power only in cases of reckless ridiculosis...then we could improve a team.

Nobody here thinks they could step in and run the draft and the Rule V draft and the arbitration deals and the minor-league free agent signings...but if our job involved having someone come to us and say "Okay, Eric Milton for $36 million. I need your signature, and then it'll all be legal", then it wouldn't be too hard.

I could do that job for the Phillies. Problem is, such a job doesn't exist, unless the owner creates it for a family member or friend (e.g. the Wilpon family), and shouldn't exist.

As interleague play continues (it winds up this weekend?), I recall the complaints of some managers that it's hard to play a team just a few times; you don't get to know them. It occured to me that the teams who do the most intesive scouting, stat review, tape study and such would have an advantage, one that can help offset the talent and payroll differences among teams.

If we were running these teams, we might find out that we were trying to answer to our boss(es), hang onto our jobs, placate the agents, and do a lot of stuff other than the ideal things we'd hope to do.

Speaking of throwaway lines, I just RTFA:

I have also listened to the audio version of the book. I have read every Bill James book ever written and consider Bill to be a pioneer in baseball theology.

Who knoew that Bill and Annie Savoy had something n common?

Like Homer Simpson, I'm a rageoholic. I'm addicted to rageohol!

Yes, we need to choose just one. I choose Squiggy.

Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad; Cease the Jihad... P L E A S E !!!

--------
trevise

Wow, I didn't expect that many people to notice my article, but thank you. Whether you agree or disagree with my thoughts, the conversation today was interesting and handled very professionally...well except maybe for the last few comments.

I respect everyone's ideas and thoughts. I think our discussion and opinions, especially on these topics, make baseball very interesting.

For the record, I have read Shanks' book. But what I plan on doing now, is to go back to Moneyball. I'm going to reread Moneyball, keeping in mind the comments people have made. I'll then reread Shanks' book as well. At that point I'll revisit the discussion and see if any of my thoughts have changed.

Both books are very important in my mind and deserve the attention, whether you agree with the authors or not.

Thanks guys.

Joe Hamrahi
Baseball Digest Daily
www.baseballdigestdaily.com

In the broadest sense, I suppose that everyone, including Joe Morgan, is a sabermetrician. My 3-yr old is an artist because he colors the carpet in my office. And the walls of the living room. The qualifier is how good of an artist is he. (I suppose in my opinion, he's a genius, but realistically, he's not that good.) Joe Morgan is likely not a good sabermetrician (though he's the perfect sabermetric player).

***

Sabermetrics is the search for baseball truth, through compiled objective data and subjective observations.

My 3-yr old is an artist because he colors the carpet in my office. And the walls of the living room. The qualifier is how good of an artist is he.

Give him something that isn't paint to paint with and you'll have Modern Art, and you can probably sell it for a good penny.

<objective data and subjective observations.</i>

And, as such, it is always going to face the same resistance that searches for any truth using those tools faces. The practice of objectivity requires a subjective perception that the world as one experiences it is not the world as it is. That's the very definition of cognitive dissonance for most people. I've tried to tell lifelong, die-hard baseball fans that RBI numbers don't impress me, and I've run headlong into a belief that the excitement they felt when they saw a favorite player get a crucial RBI in a crucial game is the Truth. At that point, I just order another beer and move on.

And I'll stick take Squiggy.

I didn't notice this in the leadin before

Hey!...maybe Alan Schwarz could get together a roundtable discussion on this subject.

RDF

What the present body of research does do any excellent job at is determining past value.

Only if it takes win probabilty into consideration. (Personally, I think the goal is winning pennants, not games; but I don't think anyone has done any work on that stuff yet.)

My last post would be slightly improved if it was properly prefaced by this quote:
Sabermetrics is the search for baseball truth, through compiled objective data and subjective observations.

(Personally, I think the goal is winning pennants, not games; but I don't think anyone has done any work on that stuff yet.)

GGC,

No... that's putting the cart before the horse. The goal in (today's) MLB is to win enough games to give your team the opportunity to win a pennant World Championship. (At least that's the "despised" theory. One which I personally do not subscribe to.)

-----------
trevise :-) ...

Cease the Jihad... P L E A S E !!!


Trevise, my friend, your words are directed at the wrong party. Remember, it was from Rocks Goldman that a took my sobriquet and it is you good friend Treder that resounds "LAA ILAHA ILLJAMES"

Oh come on, you know that was a throwaway line after some disagreeable signing that just about everyone actively distanced themselves from.

As I recall that was in response to a very similar discussion as the present one, and the speaker defended the proposition. Moreover the speaker was someone who I do presently respect notwithstanding this statement.

And yet you have Primates, even one of the brighter Primates, that believe 80% of the people on this board would do a better job than most GMs.

I think that may be more than a touch overstated.

First of all, do not lump in the fans of certain teams who go crazy when things like the Kazmir trade happen. That is not a case of stat heads rising up in hubris; that is a cri de couer from frustrated fanboys who are tired of seeing their team run into the ground.

There are a few here who do think they could do better than most GMs. There are also people here who think they run the country better than Bush and/or make better rulings than the Supreme Court. Some of them are the same people. I don't know if that has as much to with sabermetrics as it has to do with age/experience/temperament. Lord knows, I have heard this kind of stuff on bar stools long before there was an internet, and certainly before I ever heard the word sabermetrics.

I frankly doubt anyone on this Board who thinks they could a better job, could in fact hold down the job of GM for two weeks. I mean, GMs have to actually deal with real people on a regular basis, and the kind of interpersonal skills I see manifest here on a regular basis make Dan Duquette look like a regular Dale Carnegie by comparison.

[Gawd, I hope somebody here remembers who Dale Carnegie was]

Finally, I think that there are a lot of people who possibly could do better than some GMs (in the two weeks before they were fired), only because it is hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job than what passes for leadership in KC, Cincy, and a few other benighted places. I mean, how much worse than last place can you get?

the kind of interpersonal skills I see manifest here on a regular basis make Dan Duquette look like a regular Dale Carnegie by comparison.

Go to hell.

[Gawd, I hope somebody here remembers who Dale Carnegie was]

Yeah, he was Yogi Berra's son. Played middle infield for the Yankees and Pirates.

What are you still doing up? Go to bed.

What are you still doing up? Go to bed.

You're not the boss of me. Besides, these are my prime hours. I just got back from a lovely seven mile stroll and am feeling frisky.

I mean, GMs have to actually deal with real people

Damn. I can only deal with the fake people.

Damn. I can only deal with the fake people.

And not even those fake ones, if they are female.

First of all, do not lump in the fans of certain teams who go crazy when things like the Kazmir trade happen.

This is an important point. Saying that trading X for Y or signing Z was dumb is not the same as saying that you could do a better job as GM. And there's nothing wrong with criticizing a dumb move. No, we don't have access to all of the info. a GM usually does, but sometimes a dumb move is a dumb move. Signing David Segui to a 4 year, 28 million $ deal was idiotic, and lots of people said so at the time. They were right. Ditto Womack, J. Wright, Guzman, etc.

As to the question of whether any of us could be a competent GM...I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that some of the people here couldn't do that job. It's a difficult job, but with some training I think a smart person with good interpersonal skills could do it (and, yes, I happen to think I could do a better job as president than Bush). I guess it's a question of defining your terms. Could I step in right now and do a better job than some GMs? Probably not. But I think I could do a better job than some if I had several years of front office experience. Does Theo Epstein have some special skill that many of us don't? I doubt it. He just followed a career path that we didn't (and he deserves credit for that...he didn't just luck into his job).

On a broader level, to me this is a question about how much deference is owed to authority. I don't think any of us should just assume that someone is correct just because of their age or title. Dick Cheney has access to a hell of a lot more information about Iraq than I do. Should I assume he's right when he says that the insurgency is in its last throes?

I may be arrogant, but i think I have the capability to make BETTER BASEBALL TRANSACTIONS than most MLB GM's. I think I'm a pretty good negotiator/judge of talent and people/baseball mind.

But I know I'm not a better GM, because I don't have the OTHER skills necessary as a MLB GM, such as facing the media, and the financial knowledge/background to run a multi-million business. I know if i was the GM and I had to face CHB everyday I'd end up beating the krap out of him in a month.

What is with an MLB GM that is so special? Have you guys followed the NHL at all? Or MLB 20 years ago? Yeeshh. You telling me that Serge Savard and Rejean Houle are some gifted people? What about Phil Esposito? And have you guys worked for corporate America at all? Half the "superiors" I deal with I'm dumbfounded with. I agree with RP that it's simply about career path and grooming.

Truth:

From #43:

On a broader level, to me this is a question about how much deference is owed to authority. I don't think any of us should just assume that someone is correct just because of their age or title.

And: #45

And have you guys worked for corporate America at all? Half the "superiors" I deal with I'm dumbfounded with. I agree with RP that it's simply about career path and grooming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And millions enjoy Dilbert because the characters are cute?

Trevise, my friend, your words are directed at the wrong party.

S O M E T I M E S, in silence, lies the best part of valor. Teddy Roosevelt never had a carrot attached to his stick.

-----------
trevise :-) ...

[Gawd, I hope somebody here remembers who Dale Carnegie was]

All the friendly and influential people do.

If a fellow were to attack Sabermetrics because some people who follow it's principle think they'd make better GMs than the GMs that are out there, then you'd think he'd attack all 100 years of modern baseball fandom for encouraging the exact same behavior.

Half the "superiors" I deal with I'm dumbfounded with.

Wow. I can only wish I could work for a company as well-managed as yours!




(As a disclaimer to my joke, since some here do know what company I work for, I'm mostly pretty impressed with the management there, although we are suffering from a gaping leadership vacuum in a key VP spot right at the moment.)

I may be arrogant, but i think I have the capability to make BETTER BASEBALL TRANSACTIONS than most MLB GM's.

Would you? Realistic trade proposals are few and far between here, most are very fanboyish. I can imagine two primate GM:s going at it:

"Millar for Cameron, what do you say?"
"#### #### #### #### ####!"
"#### #### #### #### #### ####!!!"
"#### #### #### Hanlet Ramirez #### #### #### Piazza #### ####?"
"#### #### #### Wright #### Milledge #### Petit!!!!"
"####!"

And have you guys worked for corporate America at all? Half the "superiors" I deal with I'm dumbfounded with.

Yes, and the further up the ladder you go, the more dumbfounding they get. In my experience though, one difference between corporate America and MLB is that if you do the equivalent to the Eric Milton deal, you're fired within a few months. I'm amazed there aren't more ownership coups like they had in Arizona.

I may be arrogant, but i think I have the capability to make BETTER BASEBALL TRANSACTIONS than most MLB GM's. I think I'm a pretty good negotiator/judge of talent and people/baseball mind.

You may be arrogant, I don't know. I imagine you will be successful in whatever you choose, because you have one very unique quality. Its hard not to like you. No matter if you are arrogant as he11, pull a boner, even insult someone, and you have a charm that will have people say, "That is just Wok (or Tony)"

What is with an MLB GM that is so special?

An MLB GM is the chief operating officer of a medium sized business that has hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. For all the people that aspire to that job, only thirty-two hold it. It seems the shortest level of apprenticeship and training that anyone has had to aspire to that job is seven years in the industry. It also seems that the person who had an expedited career path also has a large number of the GM responsibilities offloaded to the chief executive who takes a more active role in the affairs.

That I think makes the position if not special, certainly scared. I doubt very many have transferrable levels of skills, or comparable levels of success in their chosen industry. Remember, even if every boast and brag on this site about academic and intellectual prowess is true, then the most that anyone has ever seen is that they have one skill that is only shown in about 1 in 100 people. That skill is not the primary skill needed to be a GM. Even if it did, then there is no performance record or indicator that anyone has that shows the skill is not shared by another 2.5 Million people.

Sure, if one chose a different career path, you MIGHT have had the comparable skillset, but I don't see many here that chose that career path, so RP's on statement shows one of the inherent limitations, and two, I don't see what would lead one to believe that any given person would have aspired to the highest level of that career path. Even in this little revolution of sabermetrics, even some of the better of this group are only being hired as specialized consultants with no decision authority. One person has managed to aspire to an assistant, and I'm not sure that is a model organization to be following.

In fact, if you take that set of people that are considered GM, one of the special things about Theo Epstein is that he does have some interpersonal skills. He knows how to sell his plan to his players. Another is that he is adaptable, and has shown deference to his superiors and subordinates. DePodesta has the skill of knowing when to shut up, and not drawing unnecessary attention. It would seem that the other two may lack both of these skills.

But the difference in skill or the ability to aspire to a position is not the most important thing. The biggest item is that GMs have far more information than most of us do. They have more detailed medical reports, and they have more detailed scouting reports.

I'm not just talking about GMs either. The same applies to field management and their decisions, like the decision to pitch Ray King over John Smoltz.

First of all, do not lump in the fans of certain teams who go crazy when things like the Kazmir trade happen.

I'm not. That is not the class that causes ire at all. That is the same thing that you have heard on bar stools for time immortal, its just that know they will throw in some extra numbers to make their case. Sometimes the arguments are good, sometimes they are specious.

I think the class is pretty well defined. Its the group that believe they are inherently better and would make better decisions because of a reliance on a small set of information that they themselves don't know how to apply.

Signing David Segui to a 4 year, 28 million $ deal was idiotic, and lots of people said so at the time. They were right. Ditto Womack, J. Wright, Guzman, etc.


And people also would say things about Jack Cust, or the wrong things about any move made by the Royals or White Sox, or any inseason decision by these clubs. And lets not forget the biggest poster boy, Jeremy Giambi. I doubt the track record of the bar stool sabermetrician is much different than the track record of Archie at Kelsey's bar.

There are a set of good sabermetricians-- Tango and Tippett immediately come to mind, that will have very respectable track records. But none of this is probative. Swedish Chef has the dynamic covered pretty well.

Does Theo Epstein have some special skill that many of us don't? I doubt it.

Many of you, yes---absolutley, as discussed supra. On an individual level I don't know, and I have no real desire to reach a decision on that point.

On a broader level, to me this is a question about how much deference is owed to authority.

That must be one he11 of a broad because that is not what has been discussed.

I don't think any of us should just assume that someone is correct just because of their age or title.

I don't think anyone ever does. At times, we gather unique information from someone. At times, we rely on the expert opinion of someone. At times, we delegate certain things to certain people. The only time that anyone assumes that someone is correct because of age or title is during that fantasy period crafted by another person that wishes to posit an inapplicable piece of rhetoric.

Dick Cheney has access to a hell of a lot more information about Iraq than I do.

I sure hope he does. I think some people might not even recognize this is the case.

Should I assume he's right when he says that the insurgency is in its last throes?

No, but you should listen to him. You should assimilate the information he gives you, and you should gauge his credibility and veracity on the subject. You can disagree with his conclusion; you can posit alternative scenarios. You should explain the basis of those conclusions.

If you are competing against him for the job or Vice President of the United States, you should make your case to the decision maker as to why you would be a better VP.

But to come to the conclusion that you would be a better VP because you disagree with that decision, or more importantly, because he doesn't use your same system, be it WARP missle factor or party affiliation is pretty telling.

I'm interested, why do you think you would be a better President than Bush. Here is your chance to whip it out.

That I think makes the position if not special, certainly scared.

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis?

But I know I'm not a better GM, because I don't have...the financial knowledge/background to run a multi-million business. I know if i was the GM and I had to face CHB everyday I'd end up beating the krap out of him in a month.

Yeah, I've heard that when guys like Billy Beane and JP Ricciardi were were riding the buses in the minors, all they talked about was the intricacies of high finance. Well, that and #####.

What is with an MLB GM that is so special? Have you guys followed the NHL at all? Or MLB 20 years ago?

Agreed. There's nothing at all about an MLB GM that is so special. Or most GM's in any sport. I don't know the history of MLB nearly as well as I know the history of the NHL, but if you look at NHL history, many of the brightest GM's, who've understood the position the best, never played in the NHL. Guys like Sam Pollock, Cliff Fletcher and Bill Torrey leap out in that regard. A guy like Jay Feaster today also stands out in that regard.

I don't know the educational background of the other Primates, or what their interpersonal skills are like. I do know that, personally, I have an educational background that is pretty similar to that of a guy like Jay Feaster, and a miles better hockey background than he did when he was my age. I've got several solid indicators that I have reasonable interpersonal skills. Why wouldn't I think that I could handle his position, albeit perhaps in a few years.

Yeeshh.

When I first read this, I thought it said Yashin.;)

What about Phil Esposito?

Absolutely. You're forgetting a ton of them though...the NHL is littered with these types.

And have you guys worked for corporate America at all? Half the "superiors" I deal with I'm dumbfounded with. I agree with RP that it's simply about career path and grooming.

Couldn't agree more. As I hinted at above, I'm a real believer in the idea that guys without professional backgrounds tend to be better too. I think you can get a guy with an academic background that makes him much more of a thinker, and someone who isn't weighed down by the baggage of myth that comes from being on the inside too long. A Sandy Alderson type, if you will.

"Millar for Cameron, what do you say?"

You can't do this ALL the time, but you can't stop me from trying to completely tool other GM's. I'd be pissed if my GM WASN'T trying to. (of course, not to the poitn that everybody simply stops dealing with you. There's a line.

pull a boner

Not exactly impressive, I know.

Does Theo Epstein have some special skill that many of us don't? I doubt it.


I think Jewish people are culturally conditioned to be good at management and financial matters, but that's just me.

I'm interested, why do you think you would be a better President than Bush.

He's not from Texas?

Yeah, I've heard that when guys like Billy Beane and JP Ricciardi were were riding the buses in the minors, all they talked about was the intricacies of high finance. Well, that and ####.

I don't know what college players study during college, but I'm sure a lot of them start with some sort of commerce/economics background. (there just aren't too many pros in medicine).

Some GM's have law backgrounds which is really great for their job IMO. I.e. the recently let go Brian Burke. Soem used to be player agents, which probably helps them as well.

YOu can't just pull off people who know baseball to be GM. GM's need to have some sort of business/law supporting background.

In #54 #### = colloquialism for vagina

Some GM's have law backgrounds which is really great for their job IMO.

I have a law background, and I have a hard time seeing how really useful it would be in a GM position, unless I had Rae Carruth on my team or something. I think that the prevalence of guys with legal backgrounds speaks to the fact that guys with legal backgrounds tend not to be stupid. The NHL over the past 11 years is a pretty clear piece of evidence of this. The guys with legal backgrounds (agents) absolutely schooled the guys with hockey backgrounds (GM's). I don't know that the law is all that important in doing so, although it's possible that I'm treating some legal stuff as common knowledge.

In #54 #### = colloquialism for vagina


Poon? tang? Poontang?

I have a law background, and I have a hard time seeing how really useful it would be in a GM position, unless I had Rae Carruth on my team or something. I think that the prevalence of guys with legal backgrounds speaks to the fact that guys with legal backgrounds tend not to be stupid. The NHL over the past 11 years is a pretty clear piece of evidence of this. The guys with legal backgrounds (agents) absolutely schooled the guys with hockey backgrounds (GM's). I don't know that the law is all that important in doing so, although it's possible that I'm treating some legal stuff as common knowledge.

I assume you will be able to handle contract disputes and suspension appeals better than I will. But I also assume you're more likely to trade Mike Cameron for Kevin Millar (j/k)

I assume you will be able to handle contract disputes and suspension appeals better than I will.

The thing is, a contract dispute is never (or very, very rarely) over whether or not the contract was honoured, or whether there was consideration, or any of that nonsense. It's generally fights over money. I don't see where being a lawyer gets you any edge in that dispute, with the exception of the previously noted caveat that anyone who's gone to law school is smarter than Mike Milbury, and thus less likely to be the one making a bad decision.

I have a law background, and I have a hard time seeing how really useful it would be in a GM position

I am not aware of anything per se about a legal education that would help someone. Depending on one's practice, you may be involved in complicated accounting and financial situations, frequently involved with negotation and contract, and evaluating multiple sources of information to arrive at a decision. In almost any practice, you have to make a number of decisions that can deeply effect other parties.

So, I would not say a generic law background creates transferrable skills. However, there are some lawyers that I know who do have transferrable skills that would make them candidates to run such an operation as an MLB franchise. There are some business professionals I know where the same could be said.

I do not know how much knowledge they would have regarding the craft of baseball, and how that would relate their skills against other candidates.

I don't see where being a lawyer gets you any edge in that dispute, with the exception of the previously noted caveat that anyone who's gone to law school is smarter than Mike Milbury

[Makes clever remark about Milbury's stupidity]

God that guy is a bloody moron.

I have a law background, and I have a hard time seeing how really useful it would be in a GM position

Have you actually negotiated contracts? I don't mean something simple. I mean complicted multi-million dollar deals, involving multiple parties, multiple interests and many moving parts.

Try putting balancing the competing interests of Owner, Consstruction Manager, Contractor and Architect in an A-111, Time and Materials, Guaranteed Maximum Price deal for the construction of a Resort Hotel. Think that kind of legal training might not come in handy?

I think a lot of people here who talk about negotiating deals in fact do not have the slightest real world clue about what goes into them, or how to make sure the contract actually says what it should. And don't think you can rely solely on the lawyers for that, either. The successful ones know what they are reading.

It seems the shortest level of apprenticeship and training that anyone has had to aspire to that job is seven years in the industry.

Backlasher, Can I assume that you don't follow the NHL? GMs in that sport don't follow the "apprenticeship" process that baseball GMs follow these days. And, I doubt that the duties of MLB and NHL GMs are much different.

So, your point about having a select 30 in an industry that generates millions in revenue (about 70 million$ per team in the NHL in 2004) doesn't apply here.

I work for a company that has a market cap of billions (i.e., the same as the entirety of MLB or NHL), and the highest level positions are occupied by people who know how to deal with bureaucracy (i.e., b-llsh-t artists). Ebbers, Lay, Rigas.

There's nothing more special about being an MLB GM than there is about being a middle manager at a Fortune 500 company. It's circumstances, career path, and grooming, that's all.

Backlasher, Can I assume that you don't follow the NHL?


Who does?

Owner, Consstruction Manager, Contractor and Architect in an A-111, Time and Materials, Guaranteed Maximum Price deal for the construction of a Resort Hotel. Think that kind of legal training might not come in handy?


You left out financier and the inner squabblings of the equity holders of the Owner.

I doubt that the duties of MLB and NHL GMs are much different.

Except that the one is gainfully employed and the other . . . not so much.

Have you actually negotiated contracts? I don't mean something simple. I mean complicted multi-million dollar deals, involving multiple parties, multiple interests and many moving parts.

Try putting balancing the competing interests of Owner, Consstruction Manager, Contractor and Architect in an A-111, Time and Materials, Guaranteed Maximum Price deal for the construction of a Resort Hotel. Think that kind of legal training might not come in handy?

Sure, it may well come in handy. Most teams don't have their GM's doing their stadium deals though, as far as I can tell. I'm sure for the more complicated deals like that, they bring in outside counsel.

The contracts that are done with players, with many of the terms filled in by the CBA, don't look that complicated to me, or much beyond what any small town solicitor in an area with oil patch activity would be involved with. There are only two parties, and while the shifting market can affect the need/desire to get a deal done immediately as opposed to a few weeks off, I don't know that a lawyer is any better at reading a market than some other person with experience in the industry.

I'd be willing to bet that they're both better than Mike Milbury though.

You left out financier and the inner squabblings of the equity holders of the Owner.

Fortunately, those do not normally show up at the table that much.

Construction lenders have their forms and systems pretty mcuh down to a science, at least out here. You want the money, the sign on to their program.

And the equity owners tend to keep their disputes between themselves. It only shows up when the deal falls apart compeletely, and then you find out that this was the reason why.

Just BTW, have you done much in the construction area? I only became deeply involved in the last few years, but I have learned from a guy who has been doing it 35 years as his main focus.

Btw... any of you folks have surgery/medical procedure lately?

I had to go through 4 pages of consent forms just to get a friggin' endoscopy. And these things were designed to be SIMPLE and EASY TO READ for patients. Yikes.

Two weeks ago I had a Cat-Scan & MRI. They were worried it was a TIA, turned out just to be an opthalmic migraine, which I'd never had before. Still a lot of paper work, you are right.

Construction law? Take it to the Judge Landis's Chamber thread.

It's circumstances, career path, and grooming, that's all.

And ambition. Some are content to wax cynical, others actually go out and do stuff to realise their ambition.

I mean, one can say: "I'm better than these guys, by rights I would be there". And I've met way too many such people who believe they don't have to prove anything because they're obviously superior.

Law school might be fine, high school might be fine. But a bullshitter without a track record isn't fine.

Give me a doer over a talker every day of the week.

Two weeks ago I had a Cat-Scan & MRI. They were worried it was a TIA, turned out just to be an opthalmic migraine, which I'd never had before. Still a lot of paper work, you are right.


Medical Legal stuff is IMO just downright ugly at times. My buddy's family who runs a clinic who's been in a dispute lately, AFTER a forensics expert/3rd party court expert cleared them of any wrong doing... had teh following experience:
1) Having a local BS know-nothing legislator show up at their door
2) Having the local BS know-nothing media write negative stories about the clinic
3) Have some mob guys throw "dead people money" at their door. (There's this local custom of burning special "dead people money" for your ancestors afte rthey pass away. Not something you're supposed to be doing at hospitals)

I work for a company that has a market cap of billions (i.e., the same as the entirety of MLB or NHL), and the highest level positions are occupied by people who know how to deal with bureaucracy (i.e., b-llsh-t artists).

My employer should be breaking a billion in sales next year, and is going through some serious growing pains. The last couple of weeks it's started looking like one of the best things for me to focus on might be aligning the voice of my business department with the voices of the sane faction in IT that lacks the political-savvy to get any traction for overhauling and augmenting teetering systems. That actually seems like it might be somewhat analagous to the GM role, except I'm a lot better at analyzing the impact of Web publishing processes on customer experience than I am at analyzing baseball players' postential.

Value of this post to this thread: not much.

Value of this post to this thread: not much.

Well, it's a nice example of the value of political savvy, a skill that's very useful for a GM.

Backlasher, Can I assume that you don't follow the NHL?

I don't have much to offer about the NHL.

There's nothing more special about being an MLB GM than there is about being a middle manager at a Fortune 500 company.

There is far more opportunity for the latter. Any given F-5 will have more middle management positions than the entirety of baseball GM slots.

It's circumstances, career path, and grooming, that's all.


And skill. But regardless no one has had that grooming or career path for which you speak.

the highest level positions are occupied by people who know how to deal with bureaucracy (i.e., b-llsh-t artists). Ebbers, Lay, Rigas.


And the highest level positions in baseball are in part occupied those that can deal with other owners, players, agents, and various other sorts. Those things are skills.

I imagine you would be successful because you are thorough and openminded person. But I disagree with the premise. The selection criteria for any given job should not be a comparison of a single number such as IQ. Experience matters, and it matters heavily.

For instance, I'm sure you could be a lawyer if you desired. But when you started practicing you would get kicked around a bit by those that understand the system, if not the law, better than you. The apprenticeship is a very valuable commodity.

Just BTW, have you done much in the construction area? I only became deeply involved in the last few years, but I have learned from a guy who has been doing it 35 years as his main focus.


Not really. Our commercial real estate department does some major projects, but our developer clients mostly construct smaller office buildings. I've had to deal with some workouts and suits after project completion, but I was not on the transaction side.

I have been/am involved in one project for a proposed major hospital where we represented the financier in both equity and debt.

Actually, I wouldn't be good as a GM, because I don't like to deal with bureaucracy. And, I'm sure I lack other things too. However, as long as Mike Milbury (New York Islanders) is a GM, I know that I qualify to be the #120th best GM in North America. (And, I'm sure there are others that would put me at #100.)

About the NHL, that league is filled with former NHL players as GMs. Oh, just remembered Bobby Clarke. That puts me at #119 now.

Swede: Give me a doer over a talker every day of the week.

What if the doer is a digger, because of all the b-s? Listen, I agree that b-llsh-t artists are important in this world, if only because they grease the engines. And, in a business, they are more valuable than alot of other workers. GMs possess alot of good qualities, and alot of poor qualities, and those poor qualities are required to do the job. That's just life in America.