Friedman to the Dodgers

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Probably not given the end result was a couple of World Series wins.

 

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean.

 

What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc.

[jersey cubs fan]

Probably not given the end result was a couple of World Series wins.

 

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean.

 

What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc.

 

You are looking for a reason to keep saying stupid stuff.

 

I don't see the point in judging Theo's purposefully losing seasons the same as anything Cashman has been involved with. Sabean's payroll has gone up sharply the past several years but he hasn't been making it every season.

 

 

 

There is plenty to be critical of but you're like the boy who cried wolf here.

[Sammy Sofa]

Probably not given the end result was a couple of World Series wins.

 

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean.

 

What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc.

 

There is not, of course, one set of concrete criteria by which to judge this given the variety of contexts. You know it, and it's a stupid tangent.

[UK1679666180]

Kyle, although you're probably arguing for argument's sake...

 

It's about philosophy (stats vs. scouts)

 

If you're comparing the resume of Epstein and Sabean as similar in past results, while they have different philosophies, you're going to gravitate towards the one you believe to lead to greater future success.

 

No need to make this a line in the sand argument.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Probably not given the end result was a couple of World Series wins.

 

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean.

 

What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc.

 

You are looking for a reason to keep saying stupid stuff.

 

I don't see the point in judging Theo's purposefully losing seasons the same as anything Cashman has been involved with. Sabean's payroll has gone up sharply the past several years but he hasn't been making it every season.

 

 

 

There is plenty to be critical of but you're like the boy who cried wolf here.

 

I'm asking questions. Is it a bit concern troll-y because I have an opinion already? Sure. But it shouldn't be *that* hard to come up with answers if you're so sure I'm wrong.

 

So Epstein gets a pass because he chose to lose? What about those final years in Boston where he tried and failed?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle, although you're probably arguing for argument's sake...

 

It's about philosophy (stats vs. scouts)

 

If you're comparing the resume of Epstein and Sabean as similar in past results, while they have different philosophies, you're going to gravitate towards the one you believe to lead to greater future success.

 

No need to make this a line in the sand argument.

 

I think that's the answer too. And I'm uncomfortable with that answer. And so should the saber-savvy community of fans. That's not how we're supposed to think. We just feel like one guy is better because we like what he has to say, regardless of results?

[Sammy Sofa]

What answer are you even looking for?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Probably not given the end result was a couple of World Series wins.

 

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean.

 

What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc.

 

There is not, of course, one set of concrete criteria by which to judge this given the variety of contexts. You know it, and it's a stupid tangent.

 

That sounds an awful lot like the same kind of reasoning that gives MVPs to the guy with the most RBIs. It's just the "we know it when we see it" argument, which isn't something the sabermetric community should ever be accepting as an answer.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm asking questions. Is it a bit concern troll-y because I have an opinion already? Sure. But it shouldn't be *that* hard to come up with answers if you're so sure I'm wrong.

 

So Epstein gets a pass because he chose to lose? What about those final years in Boston where he tried and failed?

 

You're asking stupid questions in pursuit of a non-existent thing. There is no one coherent set of standards of judge all GMs by and you know this fact.

 

I'm not talking about giving Epstein a pass. I am pissed about what he has done with the Cubs. But pretending that what Brian Sabean "did" with Bonds in 1997 is at all comparable to what Epstein did with the Cubs in 2012 is foolish.

[Sammy Sofa]

Probably not given the end result was a couple of World Series wins.

 

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean.

 

What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc.

 

There is not, of course, one set of concrete criteria by which to judge this given the variety of contexts. You know it, and it's a stupid tangent.

 

That sounds an awful lot like the same kind of reasoning that gives MVPs to the guy with the most RBIs. It's just the "we know it when we see it" argument, which isn't something the sabermetric community should ever be accepting as an answer.

 

So explain what YOU think is the clear cut criteria for deeming someone a successful GM. Don't do this B.S. dance of acting like the burden of proof is on everyone else to make your point for you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What answer are you even looking for?

 

"You're right, Kyle. Sometimes we worship guys who give the right saber-savvy soundbites in the media, and sometimes guys build up reputations based on non-repeatable factors such as inheritance, the larger organization, or even just a dumb-luck positive variance class of prospects overperforming. And maybe having a brilliant team-runner isn't that much competitive advantage over having a competent one."

 

Or something convincing me I'm wrong on those ideas would also be pretty cool.

[jersey cubs fan]

Kyle, although you're probably arguing for argument's sake...

 

It's about philosophy (stats vs. scouts)

 

If you're comparing the resume of Epstein and Sabean as similar in past results, while they have different philosophies, you're going to gravitate towards the one you believe to lead to greater future success.

 

No need to make this a line in the sand argument.

 

I think that's the answer too. And I'm uncomfortable with that answer. And so should the saber-savvy community of fans. That's not how we're supposed to think. We just feel like one guy is better because we like what he has to say, regardless of results?

No you buffoon. Sabean has hardly had amazing results despite a rising payroll. 4 of the 7 playoff appearances on his resume were Bonds related and the rest was very Hendryian, which is not impressive.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So explain what YOU think is the clear cut criteria for deeming someone a successful GM. Don't do this B.S. dance of acting like the burden of proof is on everyone else to make your point for you.

 

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to.

 

And I think that there's a lot of successful GMs out there that are all more or less fungible in terms of quality.

 

Stupid question: Before Friedman, is there any good examples of a small-market genius taking on larger resources? Beane famously turned down Boston.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No you buffoon. Sabean has hardly had amazing results despite a rising payroll. 4 of the 7 playoff appearances on his resume were Bonds related and the rest was very Hendryian, which is not impressive.

 

So again I ask: Why does inheriting Bonds wipe out Sabean's accomplishments, but inheriting a 93-win team with Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez doesn't do the same for Epstein?

[jersey cubs fan]

So explain what YOU think is the clear cut criteria for deeming someone a successful GM. Don't do this B.S. dance of acting like the burden of proof is on everyone else to make your point for you.

 

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to.

 

And I think that there's a lot of successful GMs out there that are all more or less fungible in terms of quality.

 

Stupid question: Before Friedman, is there any good examples of a small-market genius taking on larger resources? Beane famously turned down Boston.

 

The difference in resources has expanded so much in recent years it's almost impossible to make the comparisons.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to.

 

Using something as broad as just playoff appearances allows you to do just that.

[jersey cubs fan]

No you buffoon. Sabean has hardly had amazing results despite a rising payroll. 4 of the 7 playoff appearances on his resume were Bonds related and the rest was very Hendryian, which is not impressive.

 

So again I ask: Why does inheriting Bonds wipe out Sabean's accomplishments, but inheriting a 93-win team with Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez doesn't do the same for Epstein?

 

I'm not wiping it out. I'm putting it into a perspective you are incapable or unwilling of viewing. Sabean also wasn't competing with the Yankees every year back then either.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to.

 

Using something as broad as just playoff appearances allows you to do just that.

 

Playoff success is impossible for a GM to control (unless we want to bury Billy Beane). Regular-season win totals are tricky because it flies in the face of the "60 wins are no worse than 75" philosophy of rebuilding.

 

So I guess what you're saying is there's just nothing we can do to improve the evaluation process and it's just the Wild West of focusing on whatever we like about guys. Maybe we really can't do any better than that?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No you buffoon. Sabean has hardly had amazing results despite a rising payroll. 4 of the 7 playoff appearances on his resume were Bonds related and the rest was very Hendryian, which is not impressive.

 

So again I ask: Why does inheriting Bonds wipe out Sabean's accomplishments, but inheriting a 93-win team with Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez doesn't do the same for Epstein?

 

I'm not wiping it out. I'm putting it into a perspective you are incapable or unwilling of viewing. Sabean also wasn't competing with the Yankees every year back then either.

 

Did competing with the Yankees hurt the Red Sox? Because they only finished ahead of them once in the regular season and still did alright.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to.

 

Using something as broad as just playoff appearances allows you to do just that.

 

Playoff success is impossible for a GM to control (unless we want to bury Billy Beane). Regular-season win totals are tricky because it flies in the face of the "60 wins are no worse than 75" philosophy of rebuilding.

 

So I guess what you're saying is there's just nothing we can do to improve the evaluation process and it's just the Wild West of focusing on whatever we like about guys. Maybe we really can't do any better than that?

 

That's it Kyle, everybody is above average. Nothing matters. Just sit back and drink your slurpee.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So explain what YOU think is the clear cut criteria for deeming someone a successful GM. Don't do this B.S. dance of acting like the burden of proof is on everyone else to make your point for you.

 

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to.

 

And I think that there's a lot of successful GMs out there that are all more or less fungible in terms of quality.

 

Stupid question: Before Friedman, is there any good examples of a small-market genius taking on larger resources? Beane famously turned down Boston.

 

The difference in resources has expanded so much in recent years it's almost impossible to make the comparisons.

 

I'd say that even if the nominal difference in resources is expanding, the advantage of having that difference is shrinking.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to.

 

Using something as broad as just playoff appearances allows you to do just that.

 

Playoff success is impossible for a GM to control (unless we want to bury Billy Beane). Regular-season win totals are tricky because it flies in the face of the "60 wins are no worse than 75" philosophy of rebuilding.

 

So I guess what you're saying is there's just nothing we can do to improve the evaluation process and it's just the Wild West of focusing on whatever we like about guys. Maybe we really can't do any better than that?

 

Maybe. Booga-booga-boo.

[Guest]

Kyle, although you're probably arguing for argument's sake...

 

It's about philosophy (stats vs. scouts)

 

If you're comparing the resume of Epstein and Sabean as similar in past results, while they have different philosophies, you're going to gravitate towards the one you believe to lead to greater future success.

 

No need to make this a line in the sand argument.

 

I think that's the answer too. And I'm uncomfortable with that answer. And so should the saber-savvy community of fans. That's not how we're supposed to think. We just feel like one guy is better because we like what he has to say, regardless of results?

 

unfortunately, the nature of this whole thing doesn't provide the type of sample size that yields the proof being in the pudding. you need to use your judgment and favor those whose philosophies, both in practice and in what they say, are aligned with what you think is right, assuming you believe yourself to be informed and knowledgeable about such things.

Edited October 16, 2014 by David

[imb]

thank god, kyle has reached the final stage before a full-on freakout and inevitable ban. our long nightmare is nearly over.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

thank god, kyle has reached the final stage before a full-on freakout and inevitable ban. our long nightmare is nearly over.

 

Really? On a freak-out scale from 1 ("When I first started posting") to 10 ("Post-2008 playoffs"), this is like a 3.5.