Sullivan: Cubs won't pursue A-Rod

[David]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

 

 

I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life.

 

EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year.

 

 

And yes, obviously the proof of good process is in the outcome, or product. 100+ years of baseball history prove what the good and bad ways of building a baseball team are. One year proves nothing. If a team is well constructed and underachieves, there is no information to be drawn from that going forward. The same goes for the inverse (poorly constructed team overachieves). If the team was well-built and didn't ultimately achieve what it would have 9 times out of 10, it doesn't mean that the team was poorly constructed.

[CubinNY]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

 

 

I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life.

 

EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year.

No the Cubs are a bona fide example of process over product, unless I am reading your "they should've won" supposition incorrectly.

[Guest]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

I think there's about a million counter examples to this. I guess you're a really, really big fan of cheating.

[David]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

 

 

I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life.

 

EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year.

No the Cubs are a bona fide example of process over product, unless I am reading your "they should've won" supposition incorrectly.

 

 

Forget the Cubs. That's a separate argument. Process is more meaningful than outcome. Period. Variance can impact a single outcome. Sound process is the only way to ensure long term success in anything.

 

I'll use a poker (Hold 'em) analogy. If you have pocket aces, and somebody acting before you goes all in, you call. 100 times out of 100, the correct play is to call. Now, say the other guy flips over 6 3 offsuit. The board winds up being 4 5 7 9 Q and he wins this hand with 6 3 offsuit. This doesn't mean that calling with AA was the incorrect play. It means that the best hand didn't hold up. Long term, you will win far more often than not when you make this same play. The outcome of the hand (a loss) means nothing (other than the fact that you lost some money in the short run). The math says that you made the correct play, and that is all that matters.

 

Now apply that to baseball. If team A is better constructed than team B but, due to variance, winds up winning fewer games than team B in a given season, that does not mean that team B was the better team. In terms of GMing a team, what matters is how the team is put together, not necessarily how that team winds up performing.

 

If my team were looking at two candidates for GM, one who has sound baseball philosophies but, for whatever reason, has an under .500 record, and one who has a .600 record, but has flawed philosophies, I would take the former every single time. I liken this to a bad pitcher with a good W-L record vs. a good pitcher with a bad W-L record. There's a far better chance that the good philosophies will lead to future success than the naked bottom-line success. Obviously, I'm talking extreme ends of the spectrum here, but it does a good job of illustrating the point.

[UMFan83]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

 

 

I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life.

 

EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year.

No the Cubs are a bona fide example of process over product, unless I am reading your "they should've won" supposition incorrectly.

 

 

Forget the Cubs. That's a separate argument. Process is more meaningful than outcome. Period. Variance can impact a single outcome. Sound process is the only way to ensure long term success in anything.

 

I'll use a poker (Hold 'em) analogy. If you have pocket aces, and somebody acting before you goes all in, you call. 100 times out of 100, the correct play is to call. Now, say the other guy flips over 6 3 offsuit. The board winds up being 4 5 7 9 Q and he wins this hand with 6 3 offsuit. This doesn't mean that calling with AA was the incorrect play. It means that the best hand didn't hold up. Long term, you will win far more often than not when you make this same play. The outcome of the hand (a loss) means nothing (other than the fact that you lost some money in the short run). The math says that you made the correct play, and that is all that matters.

 

Now apply that to baseball. If team A is better constructed than team B but, due to variance, winds up winning fewer games than team B in a given season, that does not mean that team B was the better team. In terms of GMing a team, what matters is how the team is put together, not necessarily how that team winds up performing.

 

If my team were looking at two candidates for GM, one who has sound baseball philosophies but, for whatever reason, has an under .500 record, and one who has a .600 record, but has flawed philosophies, I would take the former every single time. I liken this to a bad pitcher with a good W-L record vs. a good pitcher with a bad W-L record. There's a far better chance that the good philosophies will lead to future success than the naked bottom-line success. Obviously, I'm talking extreme ends of the spectrum here, but it does a good job of illustrating the point.

 

Thank you. I was trying to think of a good analogy and you came up with several good ones. Except the last one, everyone knows that the pitcher with the most wins is the best choice. :wink:

[frostwyrm]

poorly constructed team overachieves

 

Great example is the 2001 Chicago Cubs team that won 88 games. With so many bums getting major playing time it's a miracle that team won 78 games, let alone 88. Regardless of W-L record, that was NOT a good team.

[David]

poorly constructed team overachieves

 

Great example is the 2001 Chicago Cubs team that won 88 games. With so many bums getting major playing time it's a miracle that team won 78 games, let alone 88. Regardless of W-L record, that was NOT a good team.

 

Exactly. That was also an example of just how sick Sammy was that year. :shock:

[CubinNY]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

I think there's about a million counter examples to this. I guess you're a really, really big fan of cheating.

And I can probably think of about a million counter examples to your examples. Cheating as a process invalidates any outcome unless you are suggesting that there are no inherent rules by which we people agree to abide. Criminal go to jail, most of the time. The better team wins, most of the time. Edited November 5, 2007 by CubinNY

[CubinNY]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

 

 

I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life.

 

EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year.

No the Cubs are a bona fide example of process over product, unless I am reading your "they should've won" supposition incorrectly.

 

 

Forget the Cubs. That's a separate argument. Process is more meaningful than outcome. Period. Variance can impact a single outcome. Sound process is the only way to ensure long term success in anything.

 

I'll use a poker (Hold 'em) analogy. If you have pocket aces, and somebody acting before you goes all in, you call. 100 times out of 100, the correct play is to call. Now, say the other guy flips over 6 3 offsuit. The board winds up being 4 5 7 9 Q and he wins this hand with 6 3 offsuit. This doesn't mean that calling with AA was the incorrect play. It means that the best hand didn't hold up. Long term, you will win far more often than not when you make this same play. The outcome of the hand (a loss) means nothing (other than the fact that you lost some money in the short run). The math says that you made the correct play, and that is all that matters.

 

Now apply that to baseball. If team A is better constructed than team B but, due to variance, winds up winning fewer games than team B in a given season, that does not mean that team B was the better team. In terms of GMing a team, what matters is how the team is put together, not necessarily how that team winds up performing.

 

If my team were looking at two candidates for GM, one who has sound baseball philosophies but, for whatever reason, has an under .500 record, and one who has a .600 record, but has flawed philosophies, I would take the former every single time. I liken this to a bad pitcher with a good W-L record vs. a good pitcher with a bad W-L record. There's a far better chance that the good philosophies will lead to future success than the naked bottom-line success. Obviously, I'm talking extreme ends of the spectrum here, but it does a good job of illustrating the point.

I'm not sure what universe you live in but unless we are talking about college football, beauty contests, and figure skating the better team is the one who won. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we live in a universe in which cause and effect do not exist.

[David]

I'm not sure what universe you live in but unless we are talking about college football, beauty contests, and figure skating the better team is the one who won. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we live in a universe in which cause and effect do not exist.

 

 

Wrong. The better team does not always win. That's absurd. There's so many examples that blow this idea out of the water that I won't even bother listing them.

 

Aside from that, you missed the point, entirely.

[CubinNY]

I'm not sure what universe you live in but unless we are talking about college football, beauty contests, and figure skating the better team is the one who won. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we live in a universe in which cause and effect do not exist.

 

 

Wrong. The better team does not always win. That's absurd. There's so many examples that blow this idea out of the water that I won't even bother listing them.

 

Aside from that, you missed the point, entirely.

 

BS. How do you judge who was better. How do you judge good process. Baseball isn't a beauty contest. Do the Mets get a pass from their fans becuase they were supposed to win? It's just ridicilous. Good outcomes are function of good process, most of the time. You cannot ignore outcome. I guess you can, but I wouldn't know why you'd want to.

 

It goes if A then B

not if B then A

 

A= Outcome

B = process

[David]

Hell, you, yourself, just said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. This pretty much completely implies that the best team isn't necessarily going to win.

[CubinNY]

Hell, you, yourself, just said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. This pretty much completely implies that the best team isn't necessarily going to win.

 

I'm not talking about the playoffs. I'm talking about the regular season. But more importantly I'm talking about wins in the regular season. The Diamond Backs had to be doing something right to win all those games. I think I read somthing in heardball times to suggest that Pyth. is not a good model for teams with a shut down bullpen. Something to the effect that the bullpen will not be utilized in low leverage situations where the team is up or down by a significant amount of runs. It is just those variations that throw off a model like that.

 

But anyway, I'd go for a little good process on the part of Hendry, who has displayed little of any process what-so-ever.

[CubinNY]

Hell, you, yourself, just said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. This pretty much completely implies that the best team isn't necessarily going to win.

 

I'm not talking about the playoffs. I'm talking about the regular season. But more importantly I'm talking about wins in the regular season. The Diamond Backs had to be doing something right to win all those games. I think I read somthing in heardball times to suggest that Pyth. is not a good model for teams with a shut down bullpen. Something to the effect that the bullpen will not be utilized in low leverage situations where the team is up or down by a significant amount of runs. It is just those variations that throw off a model like that.

 

But anyway, I'd go for a little good process on the part of Hendry, who has displayed little of any process what-so-ever.

[David]

I'm not sure what universe you live in but unless we are talking about college football, beauty contests, and figure skating the better team is the one who won. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we live in a universe in which cause and effect do not exist.

 

 

Wrong. The better team does not always win. That's absurd. There's so many examples that blow this idea out of the water that I won't even bother listing them.

 

Aside from that, you missed the point, entirely.

 

BS. How do you judge who was better. How do you judge good process. Baseball isn't a beauty contest. Do the Mets get a pass from their fans becuase they were supposed to win? It's just ridicilous. Good outcomes are function of good process, most of the time. You cannot ignore outcome. I guess you can, but I wouldn't know why you'd want to.

 

It goes if A then B

not if B then A

 

A= Outcome

B = process

 

Most of the time. But not all of the time. How do you judge good process? There are several ways. History. Odds. Math. Certainly not, however, a single outcome. The best way to ensure good outcomes in the long term is a sound process. In the short run, variance will have it's impact, but in the long run the right way will win out. The best process is the way to give yourself the best chance at success. After that, you just have to let them play the games.

 

I already gave plenty of examples. You've pretty much ignored them and refuse to acknowledge them. I'd say I'm about done here.

[David]

Hell, you, yourself, just said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. This pretty much completely implies that the best team isn't necessarily going to win.

 

I'm not talking about the playoffs. I'm talking about the regular season. But more importantly I'm talking about wins in the regular season. The Diamond Backs had to be doing something right to win all those games. I think I read somthing in heardball times to suggest that Pyth. is not a good model for teams with a shut down bullpen. Something to the effect that the bullpen will not be utilized in low leverage situations where the team is up or down by a significant amount of runs. It is just those variations that throw off a model like that.

 

But anyway, I'd go for a little good process on the part of Hendry, who has displayed little of any process what-so-ever.

 

 

Fine. You've got the point. The thing is, a full season isn't "the long run" either. Teams can overachieve for an entire 162 games and playoffs, believe it or not. They can underachieve over that sample size, too. Players can, too. Think in terms of the big picture.

 

I can agree with you on Hendry, too.

[Guest]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

I think there's about a million counter examples to this. I guess you're a really, really big fan of cheating.

And I can probably think of about a million counter examples to your examples. Cheating as a process invalidates any outcome unless you are suggesting that there are no inherent rules by which we people agree to abide. Criminal go to jail, most of the time. The better team wins, most of the time.

Dude, you're the one saying that process is NEVER more important than outcome. Considering your profession and knowledge of statistical outcomes, I find that statement staggering.

[Guest]

The answer to your question about the Mets is quite obvious, no the Mets weren't becuase they didn't make the playoffs and only won 88 games.

 

The Mets finished one game out of the playoffs and yet the weren't contenders? That's absurd.

[Pinktermite]

It seems to me that both process AND outcome are important. But I think it's forgotten that luck and chance (great poker example earlier) play a larger role in baseball than we give credit to. This year, who could have predicted the Rockies? Last year, who could have predicted the Cards winning the series? The White Sox before that? Or the Marlins in 03?

 

You can have the best process in the world and it sometimes will never matter. If the measure is playoff appearances, then clearly the Yankees would have a "good" process. If the measure is world series wins, then do ANY teams have a good process? Because it seems like a new team wins it every year, which makes "processes" less important than "outcomes", at least by that measure.

 

But, in the end, clearly without a solid baseball "process" and strategy, your chances would have to be reduced. I think.

[JWCUB]

I want to hear that the Cubs have at the very least, discussed Arod.