No Surprises:Hatteberg to Start Over Votto

[radarluv1]

the reds have to pay hatteberg either way, so why not keep the kids in AAA and delay arby/FA years.

/ i dont really know their particular contract situations, but i'd assume the org to be cheap

[CubInOK]

He keeps getting jobs for a reason, and it's not because the people who are hiring him are dumb. Dumb guys don't become GMs. They may not make moves that "statheads" agree with but they make moves based on reasoning that's logically based. They're not dumb.

 

Steve Phillips, Brian Sabean, and Dave Littlefield would like to talk baseball with you.

[imb]

He keeps getting jobs for a reason, and it's not because the people who are hiring him are dumb. Dumb guys don't become GMs. They may not make moves that "statheads" agree with but they make moves based on reasoning that's logically based. They're not dumb.

 

what kind of logical reasoning led to the victor zambrano for scott kazmir deal

[Derwood]

GM's aren't smart, they're old fashioned, and they play the "old boys club" game as well as anyone

[Guest]

He keeps getting jobs for a reason, and it's not because the people who are hiring him are dumb. Dumb guys don't become GMs. They may not make moves that "statheads" agree with but they make moves based on reasoning that's logically based. They're not dumb.

Considering the last three gm's he's worked for, I'm not sure I'd be floating this argument out there.

 

 

"stupid is as stupid does"

[Kosuke1]

He keeps getting jobs for a reason, and it's not because the people who are hiring him are dumb. Dumb guys don't become GMs. They may not make moves that "statheads" agree with but they make moves based on reasoning that's logically based. They're not dumb.

Considering the last three gm's he's worked for, I'm not sure I'd be floating this argument out there.

 

"stupid is as stupid does"

 

And I am also pretty sure that the three GMs he's worked for aren't the only people who are interested in hiring him.

 

He keeps getting jobs for a reason, and it's not because the people who are hiring him are dumb. Dumb guys don't become GMs. They may not make moves that "statheads" agree with but they make moves based on reasoning that's logically based. They're not dumb.

 

what kind of logical reasoning led to the victor zambrano for scott kazmir deal

 

At the time Kazmir was a fine prospect, but a prospect with four starts above double A. The likelihood of an elite pitching prospect flaming out and getting hurt is pretty high. That being said that all GMs make poor decisions. Every one makes mistakes. GMs are not always right, but they're not stupid people and they're not stupid baseball people. There are some many things that factor into the decision of signing, trading or hiring people. Dusty Baker is a tremendous baseball teacher, while he's probably not the best in game manager, he's absolutely great at every other aspect of being a manager. You'd think Vorpies would be fine with him, because in their opinion managers don't mean anything. The difference between good ones and bad ones in game is minimal. The good things about Torre and Dusty are simple: People want to play for him. It's possible they can lure a player or two which negates any on the field negatives that they may have. For instance, all of Dusty's on the field screw ups were likely made up by Mike Remlinger's pitching in 2003. Without Baker we don't have Remlinger. We'd be stuck with some scrub again like Scott Eyre or Kent Mercker or Carmen Pignatiello.

 

GM's aren't smart, they're old fashioned, and they play the "old boys club" game as well as anyone

 

And new wave stats oriented GMs dance with the devil in the other way. They have their problems as much as the old-fashioned GMs. Like I said of course they make mistakes, but because they make mistakes it does not mean they're dumb people. Dumb people wouldn't be able to get that job in the first place. Of course some are better than others, but none of them are stupid enough to make dumb moves all the time. The worst thing about being an arm-chair GM is not really knowing what's going on behind closed doors.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Kosuke1

[Rob]

He keeps getting jobs for a reason, and it's not because the people who are hiring him are dumb. Dumb guys don't become GMs. They may not make moves that "statheads" agree with but they make moves based on reasoning that's logically based. They're not dumb.

 

Conventional wisdom has it that a speedy leadoff hitter is an absolute necessity for a good baseball team. Jim Hendry took that information and ran with it, reaching a logical conclusion... "I should acquire Juan Pierre." Of course, Juan Pierre was completely useless, even though he performed exactly as everybody anticipated.

 

The lesson?

 

Logic is only useful when it is guided by good information.

 

And many GMs and managers avoid good information simply as a show of solidarity for their "old school" ways... forcing them to come to logical conclusions that are ineffective or downright detrimental. That makes them dumb.

[Kosuke1]

He keeps getting jobs for a reason, and it's not because the people who are hiring him are dumb. Dumb guys don't become GMs. They may not make moves that "statheads" agree with but they make moves based on reasoning that's logically based. They're not dumb.

 

Conventional wisdom has it that a speedy leadoff hitter is an absolute necessity for a good baseball team. Jim Hendry took that information and ran with it, reaching a logical conclusion... "I should acquire Juan Pierre." Of course, Juan Pierre was completely useless, even though he performed exactly as everybody anticipated.

 

The lesson?

 

Logic is only useful when it is guided by good information.

 

And many GMs and managers avoid good information simply as a show of solidarity for their "old school" ways... forcing them to come to logical conclusions that are ineffective or downright detrimental. That makes them dumb.

 

This isn't exactly true. Hendry knows that a speedy leadoff hitter is not an "absolute" necessity for a good baseball team. Hendry gave up garbage for Pierre. The Cubs had no answer in centerfield, and were looking for a guy who could leadoff and run the bases and had some range. Pierre filled that role nicely. He's not an elite player, but he's not the type of player who is going to ruin your team. That said he was better off on a team like Los Angeles, San Diego or Florida where the home run is not a big part of the game. Juan Pierre, though, was a very good fit with the wind blowing in. In those situations you absolutely must play small ball to score runs, even Vorpies will admit to this if you force them into a corner.

 

Pierre's skillset doesn't fit the traditional Vorpies view of a good player, but his skillset is a good one that helps win ball games when they're close. He's the anti-Eric Chavez. His skills become better as the quality of play for the team increases, and the game is on the line. Chavez, even when he was 100%, was useless after the 7th inning and in clutch situations because he turned into chopped liver against a middle relief southpaw. Good pitchers also tend not to walk hitters, so someone who is a hit machines going to be relatively good against them.

 

These are things that could have gone in Hendry's head, or he could have just did what a GMs job is: Get the tools a manager wants. Maybe Baker stressed he wanted Pierre because Pierre's skin color, which is another rational thought. Science backs it up. Maybe it was Baker thinking about small ball in close games.

 

Like I said above GMs make mistakes. Making mistakes does not make them dumb; even if it is the type you stated. Not learning from them makes them dumb. Has Hendry gone out and re-acquired Juan Pierre since Pierre lost his job and the Cubs had questions in center? Has Hendry started to stress the importance in on base percentage and made a conscious effort of acquiring it? Did Hendry finally get tired on waiting for Prior and Wood? Hendry seems to be learning from his mistakes. If you were a GM, I'm sure people like IMB! and Derwood above would be calling you dumb the first moment you made a deal they didn't agree with.

[Andy]

Juan Pierre was acquired to be a good leadoff hitter.

 

Juan Pierre made more outs than anyone in baseball in the year 2006.

 

Juan Pierre failed miserably in doing what he was acquired to do.

 

Simple enough, I think.

[VVMattVV]

Vorpies

 

Well, there goes any credibility you ever had.

[Kosuke1]

Chris Carpenter failed at what he was supposed to do after signing a contract extension. Does that make it a dumb move? No. If Hendry knew that Pierre would have a rough season do you think he would have went after him? The number of outs is nice, after all he did play in 162 games batting leadoff most of them and runs a lot. So he had the most plate appearances and a lot of steal attempts. Just because he made a lot of outs it doesn't mean he was bad. He was a pretty average hitter in 2006 and played decent defense. That makes him an above average center fielder. Above average is not bad.

[Outshined_One]

Nice troll attempt. You had me going for a second there.

[Kosuke1]

What? I read FJM. Can I not quote FJM? Vorpies is a hilarious term.

[Outshined_One]

These are things that could have gone in Hendry's head, or he could have just did what a GMs job is: Get the tools a manager wants. Maybe Baker stressed he wanted Pierre because Pierre's skin color, which is another rational thought. Science backs it up.

 

The number of outs is nice, after all he did play in 162 games batting leadoff most of them and runs a lot. So he had the most plate appearances and a lot of steal attempts. Just because he made a lot of outs it doesn't mean he was bad.

 

Keep going, this is getting fun.

[Kosuke1]

Do you care to elaborate on why my opinion isn't correct?

[Andy]

Do you care to elaborate on why my opinion isn't correct?

Well, for starters, you said Pierre was an average hitter. In 2006 he got on base at a .330 clip. That's not bad if you're an 8-hole hitter. Pierre, unfortunately, was the leadoff hitter. Ok, well, having a bad OBP is alright if you slug well. Well, Pierre slugged .388, which is pitiful. Sadly enough, that was actually his 3rd highest slugging percentage of his entire career. He stole 58 bases; he was also caught 20 times. 58 for 78 is 74.36 percent, which is slightly below the 75 percent benchmark at which stolen bases statistically 'break even' in terms of helping/hurting your team, so Pierre's stealing had almost no effect on the Cubs and what effect it did have was negative.

 

Pierre also surrendered roughly 800 bajillion extra bases because of his sixth-grade transsexual-caliber throwing arm. He wasn't bad defensively, but his bad arm keeps him from being what could really be considered good.

 

Was Pierre an average center fielder? Well, there were 26 center fielders in baseball in 2006 that qualified for the batting title (if you count Jacque Jones, which Yahoo! stupidly does). Pierre was 24th in OPS. That is not average. That is mind-numbingly awful, especially when you have the Cubs' resources.

 

PS: If you're curious, the guys below him were Willy Taveras and Clint Barmes. Great company.

[Rob]

What? I read FJM. Can I not quote FJM? Vorpies is a hilarious term.

 

Yeah, you blew your cover with that one.

[OleMissCub]

I see dead people...

[Kosuke1]

Do you care to elaborate on why my opinion isn't correct?

Well, for starters, you said Pierre was an average hitter. In 2006 he got on base at a .330 clip. That's not bad if you're an 8-hole hitter. Pierre, unfortunately, was the leadoff hitter. Ok, well, having a bad OBP is alright if you slug well. Well, Pierre slugged .388, which is pitiful. Sadly enough, that was actually his 3rd highest slugging percentage of his entire career. He stole 58 bases; he was also caught 20 times. 58 for 78 is 74.36 percent, which is slightly below the 75 percent benchmark at which stolen bases statistically 'break even' in terms of helping/hurting your team, so Pierre's stealing had almost no effect on the Cubs and what effect it did have was negative.

 

Pierre also surrendered roughly 800 bajillion extra bases because of his sixth-grade transsexual-caliber throwing arm. He wasn't bad defensively, but his bad arm keeps him from being what could really be considered good.

 

Was Pierre an average center fielder? Well, there were 26 center fielders in baseball in 2006 that qualified for the batting title (if you count Jacque Jones, which Yahoo! stupidly does). Pierre was 24th in OPS. That is not average. That is mind-numbingly awful, especially when you have the Cubs' resources.

 

PS: If you're curious, the guys below him were Willy Taveras and Clint Barmes. Great company.

 

You can't just say his SB% was slightly lower than the "breakeven" point and arrive to the conclusion that his legs didn't help the Cubs win because that is dumb and you only need to watch the games to see this. Those with their noses in enough spreadsheets realize it as well. His legs definitely added a benefit to the Cubs and made him close to an average offensive player, maybe a little below average, but with above average defense he's at least an average centerfielder. Either way if he's a bit below, a bit above it does not matter. He was not the Cubs problem. He had a down season so we can't peg this one on Hendry.

[Outshined_One]

Your heart's not in this joke account. Come back with a new one and try again.

[OleMissCub]

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2377/epicfailqi1ig2fv9.gif

[Outshined_One]

I think that's my cue!

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v414/Outshined_One/HomerPopRocks.gif

[javy knows my name]

Chris Carpenter failed at what he was supposed to do after signing a contract extension. Does that make it a dumb move? No. If Hendry knew that Pierre would have a rough season do you think he would have went after him? The number of outs is nice, after all he did play in 162 games batting leadoff most of them and runs a lot. So he had the most plate appearances and a lot of steal attempts. Just because he made a lot of outs it doesn't mean he was bad. He was a pretty average hitter in 2006 and played decent defense. That makes him an above average center fielder. Above average is not bad.

SHUT UP

[Bote McBoteface]

I guess it's true that Pierre having legs helped our team. I can't imagine how bad he would have sucked without legs.

[NewUserName]

On the original topic. I agree at this point you could probably put a blanket over Hattieberg and Votto. Since neither is very capable of playing other positions, I dont understand why the Reds dont trade Hattieberg while he still has value.

 

Kosuke1, I enjoy your insight and thoughts. I pretty much disagree with everything you say though. Using the watching games point is not a very good way of judging everything. That is the main point of statistical analysis. Yes Eric Chavez may not be as effective of a player in late innings as Juan Pierre. This may even be easy to see watching a game.(I actually dont believe this but I will concede it for the debate) However Eric Chavez is going to do a lot more offensively to win a game from innings 1-6 than Pierre. Because he helps your team score more runs. There are very scientific formulas that have been shown to be very accurate is judging a players ability to help a team score runs. No matter what mindset you come from there is no debate, scoring more runs than your opponent is the main stat. When, where, and how is what you are debating. I should look this up first but I am just going to assume it. I would assume that all of the very accurate measurements of a players ability to help a team score runs would favor Eric Chavez. He therefore is a more valuable player no matter the when, where, and how.

 

The problem with the not so intelligent thinking GMs and managers in baseball is that they value runs scored late in games more than runs scored early in games. Truth be told if you win 5-4 because Juan Pierre led off the 9th with a Hit, SB, Sac Bunt and Sac Fly. That does not have the same value as the 3 run HR Eric Chavez hit in the 3rd. However Juan Pierre's run will make the biggest story in the paper because it was the "winning" run. Without Chavez's HR though its not even important.