A Cub fan's worst nightmare...

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Plus, they're Bear fans don't forget that.

 

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

 

If you're a Bear fan, it has everything to do with.......everything. These are the same fans you will be hugging at Soldier field after the Bears score a winning touchdown (if they ever do.........that's another story). It's a very, very good reason to root for Chicago and therefore the White Sox.

 

We're all Chicago fans, and that's the bottom line. Certainly most Cub & Sox fans have Chicago in their hearts, and that's more than enough reason to root for the White Sox over the hated, despicable, Cardinals.

 

If you aren't a Bear fan, then perhaps it doesn't mean anything to you. Many Cub fans are though, including myself.

 

Please...those same Bears fans were talking trash after Games 6 and 7 in 2003 to me and other Cubs fans.

 

 

.....and high-fived Cub fans in 2001 when Mike Brown took 2 INTs back for game-winning TDs in overtime. Many Cub & Sox fans partied together the night the Bears clinched the division title that year, beating the Packers at *something* for the first time in forever.

 

Where were the Cards fans? Oh yeah, now I remember: rooting for us to lose for their Rams home-field advantage. Had we won another game we wouldn't have faced the upstart Beagles and surely would have advanced...

 

Cards fans may as well be Martians to me. Sox fans at least share the same city interests sports-wise after the baseball season ends.

 

I didn't like being trash-talked after games 6 & 7 either. But guess what? It was coming from Cards fans every bit as much as Sox fans. So in the final analysis, my alliegance in a Cards/Sox World Series would go squarely to the South Side, despite the North/South side rivalry.

 

I can't even understand someone who would root for the Cards.

 

Maybe a person who has been treated worse by White Sox fans? You'll root against the Cards, that's fine. Others will too. And even others won't. They have their reasons.

I'd have to pull for the Cards over the White Sox. We can't let them end the drought first. It has to be the Cubs. The White Sox are not a Chicago team to me. The grey jerseys say Chicago, but I'm not reading it. I've never had any trouble with Cardinals fans. It's more of a good-spirited jab-in-the-arm kinda deal. White Sox fans are bitter, mean-spirited, and care more about being better than the Cubs than anything else. (And to get all three big rivalries accounted for, Astros fans are just obnoxious.)

 

So yeah. If it comes down to that, let the Cardinals win it, preferably in 4 or 5, so they can say goodbye to their strangely beloved cookie-cutter Busch Stadium in style. Then the Cubs can beat them in 2006. But I don't want a World Series victory parade in our city for any team but the Cubs.

[Andy]

I'd have to pull for the Cards over the White Sox. We can't let them end the drought first. It has to be the Cubs. The White Sox are not a Chicago team to me. The grey jerseys say Chicago, but I'm not reading it. I've never had any trouble with Cardinals fans. It's more of a good-spirited jab-in-the-arm kinda deal. White Sox fans are bitter, mean-spirited, and care more about being better than the Cubs than anything else. (And to get all three big rivalries accounted for, Astros fans are just obnoxious.)

 

So yeah. If it comes down to that, let the Cardinals win it, preferably in 4 or 5, so they can say goodbye to their strangely beloved cookie-cutter Busch Stadium in style. Then the Cubs can beat them in 2006. But I don't want a World Series victory parade in our city for any team but the Cubs.

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of this post, except for the Astros part only because I don't know any Astros fans myself.

[Soul]

Oh good Lord no.

 

The Sox are a cross town rivalry. The Cards are our sworn, hated enemy.

 

I think some of you are too sensitive to the words you hear, and it causes you to lose perspective a little bit.

 

Bah. It doesn't matter. Root for who you wish.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Oh good Lord no.

 

The Sox are a cross town rivalry. The Cards are our sworn, hated enemy.

 

I think some of you are too sensitive to the words you hear, and it causes you to lose perspective a little bit.

 

Bah. It doesn't matter. Root for who you wish.

 

Thank-you. I was anyway, but I'm glad I have your permission.

[Priorknowledge]

It'll all work out when Los Angeles plants the White Sox on their butts. Seriously, I'd be surprised if the White Sox win two against them. Kudos to a great season and then welcome back down to earth next year. For those of you interested in the "great" general managing of Kenny Williams, take a read at this article about the Lee-Pods trade:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/07/oct07.chatter/index.html

 

Some buffoon writes a web article and that means something somehow? You oughtta know better than that.

 

Who's in the playoffs and who isn't? That's all that matters. Like I said, individual stats: overrated. Team wins: the name of the game.

 

Wow Soul. You're missing the point. What CPatt and the rest have been saying is true, Kenny Williams simply isn't a good GM. The article proves it without discrediting Pods' year. Lee's importance to the Brewers is far more than Pods to the White Sox, as the VORP is stating. He's fortunate that Pods became a sparkplug. Would a good GM make a trade to acquire the SAME OF/DH (Everett) twice in back to back midseasons? Seems like a waste of prospects to me. Let me see what I'm gathering here, your argument is based off of what? Miracles and luck? No doubting the White Sox have been good this year, but come on. Statistically they shouldn't even been close (hence my comment that they will fall hard in the standings next year). You should know better...

 

What that mediot fails to realize as do most others who look at that trade, is that it was also a salary dump, which saved the White Sox 7 million, which they used to sign AJ, El Duque and Iguchi.

[Soul]

It'll all work out when Los Angeles plants the White Sox on their butts. Seriously, I'd be surprised if the White Sox win two against them. Kudos to a great season and then welcome back down to earth next year. For those of you interested in the "great" general managing of Kenny Williams, take a read at this article about the Lee-Pods trade:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/07/oct07.chatter/index.html

 

Some buffoon writes a web article and that means something somehow? You oughtta know better than that.

 

Who's in the playoffs and who isn't? That's all that matters. Like I said, individual stats: overrated. Team wins: the name of the game.

 

Wow Soul. You're missing the point. What CPatt and the rest have been saying is true, Kenny Williams simply isn't a good GM. The article proves it without discrediting Pods' year. Lee's importance to the Brewers is far more than Pods to the White Sox, as the VORP is stating. He's fortunate that Pods became a sparkplug. Would a good GM make a trade to acquire the SAME OF/DH (Everett) twice in back to back midseasons? Seems like a waste of prospects to me. Let me see what I'm gathering here, your argument is based off of what? Miracles and luck? No doubting the White Sox have been good this year, but come on. Statistically they shouldn't even been close (hence my comment that they will fall hard in the standings next year). You should know better...

 

What that mediot fails to realize as do most others who look at that trade, is that it was also a salary dump, which saved the White Sox 7 million, which they used to sign AJ, El Duque and Iguchi.

 

...and the fact that the White Sox's achilles heel over the past 5 years has always been their defense, an area where Carlos Lee is below the curve and Pod shines. The writer of that article at least posts a defensive measurement and it, of course, shows Pod has much better defensive value than Lee.

 

And in his final analysis, Mr. Luft acknowledges Pod's defense, and further acknowledges the need to look past numbers like VORP, which he claims are slanted toward sluggers.

 

Fact is, that article doesn't "prove" the Lee for PODS deal was bad. It does nothing of the sort. Lee is a better slugger. PODS is better for the White Sox. This deal that supposedly makes Kenny Williams a terrible GM is actually a solid move that helped that ballclub and is a contributing reason why their win total was up this year.

 

Lee is a very good offensive player who is a much better fit in Milwaukee, a team that was starving for power after the loss of Richie Sexson. I'm taking nothing away from Carlos here. In fact, he would look pretty darn good in Cubbie blue given our current situation in the outfield. Not gonna happen, but hey I can dream.

 

I'm sorry, but I respectfully decline those of you who think this was just a "stupid" deal. It was, in my opinion, a pretty good move by Kenny Williams given the White Sox situation.

[imb]

their defense, an area where Carlos Lee is below the curve and Pod shines.

 

Fielding win shares

Carlos Lee - 4.0

Scoty Pod - 4.2

[Soul]

their defense, an area where Carlos Lee is below the curve and Pod shines.

 

Fielding win shares

Carlos Lee - 4.0

Scoty Pod - 4.2

 

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

[treebird]

their defense, an area where Carlos Lee is below the curve and Pod shines.

 

Fielding win shares

Carlos Lee - 4.0

Scoty Pod - 4.2

 

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

[stitchface]

this is so silly. ken williams is not a great gm. he is an active gm but great is ridiculous. What great moves has he made? Podsednik for Lee may not be terrible but it certainly isn't great. When he wins 100 games three years in a row with a sub-$50 payroll maybe we can call him great. On the basis of one season? No chance.

 

I would still cheer for the white sox against the cardinals though. and the yankees for that matter.

[Soul]

their defense, an area where Carlos Lee is below the curve and Pod shines.

 

Fielding win shares

Carlos Lee - 4.0

Scoty Pod - 4.2

 

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

 

Sure. Let's. 99 wins. Any questions?

[Diffusion]

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

 

Sure. Let's. 99 wins. Any questions?

 

No, but one massive complaint. This is just an expansion on what I wrote earlier, but here's how a baseball team works, baseball philosophy 101...

 

Resources > Talent > Performance > Wins

 

 

Resources

 

By far the biggest variable resource that a GM has is payroll, and that for the most part is determined solely by the money men. It's not unknown for a GM to talk his superiors into giving him more payroll to work with than might otherwise have been the case, but for the most part, the GM is uninvolved in the determination of the payroll that he has to play with. The same applies to other resources: draft picks, waiver claims, all these are bound by baseball-wide regulations that GMs have only a fractional say in determining. Therefore, more often than not, the nature of the resources that a GM is afforded can be disregarded in effective evaluation of his job performance.

 

Resources > Talent

 

This is by far the biggest area of the GM's job: the efficiency with which he takes the determined resources that he's been given and turns them into talent. That means getting the most talent out of every dollar, the most talent out of every trade, the most talent out of every ounce of prospect potential, the most talent out of every draft pick, and as many draft picks as possible too (via exploitation of the compensatory draft pick system), the most talent out of every possible waiver wire claim, the most talent out of every single roster spot, the most talent out of every action he ever takes and every decision he ever makes. However, any talent just isn't good enough: it has to be the type of talent that's the most accessible, the most likely to be turned into performance. Part of a GM's success in this area is ultimately dependent entirely upon his own skills as a trader, negotiator etc. and his own instincts, since the buck stops with him. But a GM can help himself, by surrounding himself with the best and most knowledgeable baseball minds, by appointing the best scouts, statisticians, accessors of talent, and so on, just so that he's never in a position where he doesn't know enough to make the right decision.

 

Talent > Performance

 

Here the GM's job is confined to the appointment of those most likely to facilitiate the conversion of player talent into performance. That means hiring the best manager, the best coaches, the best medics, the best minor league instructors, the best anything that could in any way help a player to make more of his talent. An injured player is no good, an unmotivated player is no good, a player that's never learn to harness his talent is no good. But, at the end of the day, much of this conversion from talent to performance is well beyond a GM's control. Random unforeseeable injuries happen, players slump even when supported as much as possible, players make stupid mistakes they obviously shouldn't. And, on the flip side of things, players that could reasonably be expected to get injured stay healthy, players play above their heads, players can become different better players overnight. The conversion from talent to performance is extremely imperfect. And the GM doesn't have a huge amount to do with it.

 

Performance > Wins

 

The conversion here is just as imperfect and just as important. And here the GM has virtually no say or control at all. In fact, does anyone have any say or control at all? Over the course of a season there are probably billions of situations where one thing could have happened, but didn't. Or one thing could have not happened, but did. There is no guarantee that over the course of the season you'll end up with happened and didn't happen in the proportions that you'd expect given the talent (aka performance). But there's even less guarantee that over the course of the season the timeliness of the happened and didn't happen will all balance out at all. As a result two teams that perform identically, probably despite different levels of overall talent, can end up with hugely different win totals simply because of variation in the timeliness of their performances. And yet there seems to be very little correlation year to year in the timeliness of performance. It just seems so random. It's just not a case of the most talented team wins, or the best performing team wins. It's not as simple as that. There are greater cosmic forces at work. The translation from performance to wins is hugely imperfect, and often decisive. And, like I said, the GM almost certainly has nothing to do with it.

 

 

So, my point, again, is that while it is often the case that such a GM competent at turning resources into talent partially contributes to his team winning more games, because there are such imperfect translations from talent to performance and performance to wins in which the GM is not involved in the slightest, not to mention the variation in the determined resources that the GM had to start off with, it's simply impossible to say that because a GM's team won 99 games, the GM by default did his job, and did it well.

 

And that, Soul, is the essence of your entire argument: the White Sox won 99 games, therefore Ken Williams did a good job. Sadly, it's not as simple as that, and you can protest as many times as you like, but it won't ever change the fact that winning baseball games is a complex and complicated business. You can't boil it down as you've done, and as numerous other idiots regularly do, in the media, in baseball circles, in bars, in here far too often too, to catchphrases, cliches, throwaway lines, and all other manner of gross oversimplications. Williams, like every single GM, has to be judged much more by the job he's done in terms of turning resources into talent and faciliating talent into performance (via appointment of manager etc.) as opposed to the end results of wins and losses. A similar logic applies to managers: they have to be judged much more by the job they do in turning talent into performance (and perhaps performance into victories) than by the end results of wins and losses. And the money men have to be judged by the resources they make available and their facilitation of resources into talent (via appointment of GM etc.) much more than by wins and losses. Consider all that together, and consider all the things that are beyond control, and only then do wins and losses have any real evaluatory purpose.

[Larry Horse]

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

 

Sure. Let's. 99 wins. Any questions?

 

No, but one massive complaint. This is just an expansion on what I wrote earlier, but here's how a baseball team works, baseball philosophy 101...

 

Resources > Talent > Performance > Wins

 

 

Resources

 

By far the biggest variable resource that a GM has is payroll, and that for the most part is determined solely by the money men. It's not unknown for a GM to talk his superiors into giving him more payroll to work with than might otherwise have been the case, but for the most part, the GM is uninvolved in the determination of the payroll that he has to play with. The same applies to other resources: draft picks, waiver claims, all these are bound by baseball-wide regulations that GMs have only a fractional say in determining. Therefore, more often than not, the nature of the resources that a GM is afforded can be disregarded in effective evaluation of his job performance.

 

Resources > Talent

 

This is by far the biggest area of the GM's job: the efficiency with which he takes the determined resources that he's been given and turns them into talent. That means getting the most talent out of every dollar, the most talent out of every trade, the most talent out of every ounce of prospect potential, the most talent out of every draft pick, and as many draft picks as possible too (via exploitation of the compensatory draft pick system), the most talent out of every possible waiver wire claim, the most talent out of every single roster spot, the most talent out of every action he ever takes and every decision he ever makes. However, any talent just isn't good enough: it has to be the type of talent that's the most accessible, the most likely to be turned into performance. Part of a GM's success in this area is ultimately dependent entirely upon his own skills as a trader, negotiator etc. and his own instincts, since the buck stops with him. But a GM can help himself, by surrounding himself with the best and most knowledgeable baseball minds, by appointing the best scouts, statisticians, accessors of talent, and so on, just so that he's never in a position where he doesn't know enough to make the right decision.

 

Talent > Performance

 

Here the GM's job is confined to the appointment of those most likely to facilitiate the conversion of player talent into performance. That means hiring the best manager, the best coaches, the best medics, the best minor league instructors, the best anything that could in any way help a player to make more of his talent. An injured player is no good, an unmotivated player is no good, a player that's never learn to harness his talent is no good. But, at the end of the day, much of this conversion from talent to performance is well beyond a GM's control. Random unforeseeable injuries happen, players slump even when supported as much as possible, players make stupid mistakes they obviously shouldn't. And, on the flip side of things, players that could reasonably be expected to get injured stay healthy, players play above their heads, players can become different better players overnight. The conversion from talent to performance is extremely imperfect. And the GM doesn't have a huge amount to do with it.

 

Performance > Wins

 

The conversion here is just as imperfect and just as important. And here the GM has virtually no say or control at all. In fact, does anyone have any say or control at all? Over the course of a season there are probably billions of situations where one thing could have happened, but didn't. Or one thing could have not happened, but did. There is no guarantee that over the course of the season you'll end up with happened and didn't happen in the proportions that you'd expect given the talent (aka performance). But there's even less guarantee that over the course of the season the timeliness of the happened and didn't happen will all balance out at all. As a result two teams that perform identically, probably despite different levels of overall talent, can end up with hugely different win totals simply because of variation in the timeliness of their performances. And yet there seems to be very little correlation year to year in the timeliness of performance. It just seems so random. It's just not a case of the most talented team wins, or the best performing team wins. It's not as simple as that. There are greater cosmic forces at work. The translation from performance to wins is hugely imperfect, and often decisive. And, like I said, the GM almost certainly has nothing to do with it.

 

 

So, my point, again, is that while it is often the case that such a GM competent at turning resources into talent partially contributes to his team winning more games, because there are such imperfect translations from talent to performance and performance to wins in which the GM is not involved in the slightest, not to mention the variation in the determined resources that the GM had to start off with, it's simply impossible to say that because a GM's team won 99 games, the GM by default did his job, and did it well.

 

And that, Soul, is the essence of your entire argument: the White Sox won 99 games, therefore Ken Williams did a good job. Sadly, it's not as simple as that, and you can protest as many times as you like, but it won't ever change the fact that winning baseball games is a complex and complicated business. You can't boil it down as you've done, and as numerous other idiots regularly do, in the media, in baseball circles, in bars, in here far too often too, to catchphrases, cliches, throwaway lines, and all other manner of gross oversimplications. Williams, like every single GM, has to be judged much more by the job he's done in terms of turning resources into talent and faciliating talent into performance (via appointment of manager etc.) as opposed to the end results of wins and losses. A similar logic applies to managers: they have to be judged much more by the job they do in turning talent into performance (and perhaps performance into victories) than by the end results of wins and losses. And the money men have to be judged by the resources they make available and their facilitation of resources into talent (via appointment of GM etc.) much more than by wins and losses. Consider all that together, and consider all the things that are beyond control, and only then do wins and losses have any real evaluatory purpose.

 

I look at it like this.

 

99 wins means the manager did a good job, and the GM who picked the manager and gave him the players also did a good job.

 

Luck also is a huge factor. Good teams have good luck, bad teams usually don't. Neither the manager or GM can control that.

 

Williams and Ozzie did a good job this year, and Hendry and Baker did not. Williams remade a team that could not beat the Twins and now that team is in the ALCS. He picked the players and the manager that carried out the task, so he gets the credit.

 

Scheurholtz and Cox are probably the best, especially after this year.

 

In the end, it is based on wins and losses. That is the bottom line in any sport. If it wasn't that simple, than no GM or head coach or manager would ever get fired.

[Larry Horse]

It'll all work out when Los Angeles plants the White Sox on their butts. Seriously, I'd be surprised if the White Sox win two against them. Kudos to a great season and then welcome back down to earth next year. For those of you interested in the "great" general managing of Kenny Williams, take a read at this article about the Lee-Pods trade:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/07/oct07.chatter/index.html

 

Some buffoon writes a web article and that means something somehow? You oughtta know better than that.

 

Who's in the playoffs and who isn't? That's all that matters. Like I said, individual stats: overrated. Team wins: the name of the game.

 

Wow Soul. You're missing the point. What CPatt and the rest have been saying is true, Kenny Williams simply isn't a good GM. The article proves it without discrediting Pods' year. Lee's importance to the Brewers is far more than Pods to the White Sox, as the VORP is stating. He's fortunate that Pods became a sparkplug. Would a good GM make a trade to acquire the SAME OF/DH (Everett) twice in back to back midseasons? Seems like a waste of prospects to me. Let me see what I'm gathering here, your argument is based off of what? Miracles and luck? No doubting the White Sox have been good this year, but come on. Statistically they shouldn't even been close (hence my comment that they will fall hard in the standings next year). You should know better...

 

What that mediot fails to realize as do most others who look at that trade, is that it was also a salary dump, which saved the White Sox 7 million, which they used to sign AJ, El Duque and Iguchi.

 

 

And there is the winning answer.

 

Now the big question for us Cub fans: How will Hendry spend the freed up Sosa money?

[Andy]

13 million in freed up Sosa money --

 

8M for Giles

5M for Nomar

[sethuel1]

It'll all work out when Los Angeles plants the White Sox on their butts. Seriously, I'd be surprised if the White Sox win two against them. Kudos to a great season and then welcome back down to earth next year. For those of you interested in the "great" general managing of Kenny Williams, take a read at this article about the Lee-Pods trade:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/07/oct07.chatter/index.html

 

Some buffoon writes a web article and that means something somehow? You oughtta know better than that.

 

Who's in the playoffs and who isn't? That's all that matters. Like I said, individual stats: overrated. Team wins: the name of the game.

 

Wow Soul. You're missing the point. What CPatt and the rest have been saying is true, Kenny Williams simply isn't a good GM. The article proves it without discrediting Pods' year. Lee's importance to the Brewers is far more than Pods to the White Sox, as the VORP is stating. He's fortunate that Pods became a sparkplug. Would a good GM make a trade to acquire the SAME OF/DH (Everett) twice in back to back midseasons? Seems like a waste of prospects to me. Let me see what I'm gathering here, your argument is based off of what? Miracles and luck? No doubting the White Sox have been good this year, but come on. Statistically they shouldn't even been close (hence my comment that they will fall hard in the standings next year). You should know better...

 

What that mediot fails to realize as do most others who look at that trade, is that it was also a salary dump, which saved the White Sox 7 million, which they used to sign AJ, El Duque and Iguchi.

 

 

And there is the winning answer.

 

Now the big question for us Cub fans: How will Hendry spend the freed up Sosa money?

6m for Preston Wilson. 7m to pick up Burnitz's option.

[ZMovieman]

It'll all work out when Los Angeles plants the White Sox on their butts. Seriously, I'd be surprised if the White Sox win two against them. Kudos to a great season and then welcome back down to earth next year. For those of you interested in the "great" general managing of Kenny Williams, take a read at this article about the Lee-Pods trade:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/07/oct07.chatter/index.html

 

Some buffoon writes a web article and that means something somehow? You oughtta know better than that.

 

Who's in the playoffs and who isn't? That's all that matters. Like I said, individual stats: overrated. Team wins: the name of the game.

 

Wow Soul. You're missing the point. What CPatt and the rest have been saying is true, Kenny Williams simply isn't a good GM. The article proves it without discrediting Pods' year. Lee's importance to the Brewers is far more than Pods to the White Sox, as the VORP is stating. He's fortunate that Pods became a sparkplug. Would a good GM make a trade to acquire the SAME OF/DH (Everett) twice in back to back midseasons? Seems like a waste of prospects to me. Let me see what I'm gathering here, your argument is based off of what? Miracles and luck? No doubting the White Sox have been good this year, but come on. Statistically they shouldn't even been close (hence my comment that they will fall hard in the standings next year). You should know better...

 

What that mediot fails to realize as do most others who look at that trade, is that it was also a salary dump, which saved the White Sox 7 million, which they used to sign AJ, El Duque and Iguchi.

 

 

And there is the winning answer.

 

Now the big question for us Cub fans: How will Hendry spend the freed up Sosa money?

 

Sometimes you can't reason with people. Honestly, we should make this a poll question. Who would you rather have as your GM: Hendry or Williams? Who has made more bad trades and signings? Honestly, this is the first year I can remember Williams' moves actually working to even some degree. I'll take Hendry thank you.

[Diffusion]

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

 

Sure. Let's. 99 wins. Any questions?

 

No, but one massive complaint. This is just an expansion on what I wrote earlier, but here's how a baseball team works, baseball philosophy 101...

 

Resources > Talent > Performance > Wins

 

Yadda...

 

I look at it like this.

 

99 wins means the manager did a good job, and the GM who picked the manager and gave him the players also did a good job.

 

Well you need to get your eyes tested. The Yankees win 99+ games just about every year. And I'll tell you now that they have by far the most ineffective GM in the game, and I don't think a huge deal about their manager either. They win at the resource level, and just about manage to not haemorrage away all of their advantage going from resource to talent to performance to wins.

 

Now the Yankees are a very exceptional example, but the point is that 99 wins on its own means absolutely nothing. It bears absolutely no reflection on its own upon the GM and the manager. It only implies. If you want to find out whether the implication is true, you need to look at the actual job that the GM and manager did in a lot more detail. It could well be that the implication is true, and in this instance I'm not saying it's not. But I'm not going to say that it is simply because you and a bunch of other people childishly scream "99 wins!!!!!! Kenny Williams is GOOD!!!!!!! I want him as CUBS GM!!!!! I heart Williams!!!!!"

 

Luck also is a huge factor. Good teams have good luck, bad teams usually don't. Neither the manager or GM can control that.

 

Now you immediately contradict yourself, and throw in a tired "good teams have good luck" Tim McCarver-esque cliché for good measure. If a GM can't control luck, and luck is a huge factor, and it's possible that the White Sox were lucky this year, why all the drooling over Kenny Williams? Or have you come to the conclusion that the White Sox weren't lucky this year? On what basis? Show your working.

 

Williams and Ozzie did a good job this year, and Hendry and Baker did not.

 

More grossly simplified conclusions based on absolutely nothing. You're like a little kid doing mental arithmetic that writes down the answer and nothing but the answer because he cheated with a calculator. Only baseball isn't as black and white, right and wrong as math. But you've come to your conclusion and aren't able or willing to say why beyond throwing out tired stuff about how "he won 99 games, therefore he must have done a good job". That's rubbish. How do you know that without Williams the White Sox this year wouldn't have won 107 games, or 91 games, or whatever? That's the only thing that matters. The effect that Williams had. Not that he just happened to be "in charge" when something happened.

 

Scheurholtz and Cox are probably the best, especially after this year.

 

Why's that? Because they're extremely efficient at converting reasonably limited resources into talent and then into performance, that and they've seemingly got a grip on the conversion of performance into wins. Seemingly being an important word, because I don't know if they do. The consequence of all that is that they often win a lot of games. But they're not good because they often win a lot of games. They're good because they do the things that conveniently often lead to winning a lot of games. There's a big distinction that is so often overlooked in America's quest to boil everything down into black and white, good and evil, whatever. You're force-fed the most tired oversimplified watered down rhetoric. And you eat it. Perhaps because three supersized McDonalds meals just isn't enough. Oh, no, more oversimplication!

 

You just don't get it. Wins and losses probably are the bottom line, but that doesn't mean that they should be. You can only judge a GM by the efficiency with which he converts resources into talent, and by the people that he appoints beneath him. None of that gives him total control over the win loss record though. Therefore winning 99 games doesn't necessary make a GM any better than one that won just 89, or 79, or 69. You can only judge someone upon the things that are within their control.

 

Fernando Alonso, a Formula 1 racing driver, spent a season with Minardi in 2001, a team with one of the worst cars in the sport, and he didn't score a single point all season. In fact, he didn't finish 8 of the 17 races, and finished in 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, 16 and 17th positions in the races he did complete (20 cars start the race, top 6 at that stage scored points). By your kind of a logic, all that makes him a bad driver, since you can only judge him by wins and losses and all that. I mean, he can't be that good, he didn't even get to the end in 8 races, he never finished higher than 10th in any of the others. Useless.

 

Only he's the World Champion now. So what's changed? Not so much Alonso. He was a very good young driver back then, and he's an even better still young driver now. What's really changed are the things that aren't in Alonso's control. This year he had an extremely reliable car, and he's finished in 15 of the 17 races so far this year (and 1 of them he didn't start, the farce in Indianapolis in which just about no-one started). So he's finished 15 of the 16 races he's started so far this year. He's also had a fast car, if not the fastest, and in 13 of the 15 races he's finished, he's placed in the top three. He also placed 4th in another. And he's also enjoyed quite a bit of luck, with a good driver in a far quicker car (Raikkonen) suffering huge reliability problems.

 

But if you want to measure everything in wins and losses, in any sport, then you can only come to the conclusion that Alonso was crap in 2001 and brilliant in 2005, and it's lucky for him that he didn't remain such a terrible driver and actually got better.

[LetsPlayTwo]

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

 

Sure. Let's. 99 wins. Any questions?

 

No, but one massive complaint. This is just an expansion on what I wrote earlier, but here's how a baseball team works, baseball philosophy 101...

 

Resources > Talent > Performance > Wins

 

Yadda...

 

I look at it like this.

 

99 wins means the manager did a good job, and the GM who picked the manager and gave him the players also did a good job.

 

Well you need to get your eyes tested. The Yankees win 99+ games just about every year. And I'll tell you now that they have by far the most ineffective GM in the game, and I don't think a huge deal about their manager either. They win at the resource level, and just about manage to not haemorrage away all of their advantage going from resource to talent to performance to wins.

 

Now the Yankees are a very exceptional example, but the point is that 99 wins on its own means absolutely nothing. It bears absolutely no reflection on its own upon the GM and the manager. It only implies. If you want to find out whether the implication is true, you need to look at the actual job that the GM and manager did in a lot more detail. It could well be that the implication is true, and in this instance I'm not saying it's not. But I'm not going to say that it is simply because you and a bunch of other people childishly scream "99 wins!!!!!! Kenny Williams is GOOD!!!!!!! I want him as CUBS GM!!!!! I heart Williams!!!!!"

 

Luck also is a huge factor. Good teams have good luck, bad teams usually don't. Neither the manager or GM can control that.

 

Now you immediately contradict yourself, and throw in a tired "good teams have good luck" Tim McCarver-esque cliché for good measure. If a GM can't control luck, and luck is a huge factor, and it's possible that the White Sox were lucky this year, why all the drooling over Kenny Williams? Or have you come to the conclusion that the White Sox weren't lucky this year? On what basis? Show your working.

 

Williams and Ozzie did a good job this year, and Hendry and Baker did not.

 

More grossly simplified conclusions based on absolutely nothing. You're like a little kid doing mental arithmetic that writes down the answer and nothing but the answer because he cheated with a calculator. Only baseball isn't as black and white, right and wrong as math. But you've come to your conclusion and aren't able or willing to say why beyond throwing out tired stuff about how "he won 99 games, therefore he must have done a good job". That's rubbish. How do you know that without Williams the White Sox this year wouldn't have won 107 games, or 91 games, or whatever? That's the only thing that matters. The effect that Williams had. Not that he just happened to be "in charge" when something happened.

 

Scheurholtz and Cox are probably the best, especially after this year.

 

Why's that? Because they're extremely efficient at converting reasonably limited resources into talent and then into performance, that and they've seemingly got a grip on the conversion of performance into wins. Seemingly being an important word, because I don't know if they do. The consequence of all that is that they often win a lot of games. But they're not good because they often win a lot of games. They're good because they do the things that conveniently often lead to winning a lot of games. There's a big distinction that is so often overlooked in America's quest to boil everything down into black and white, good and evil, whatever. You're force-fed the most tired oversimplified watered down rhetoric. And you eat it. Perhaps because three supersized McDonalds meals just isn't enough. Oh, no, more oversimplication!

 

You just don't get it. Wins and losses probably are the bottom line, but that doesn't mean that they should be. You can only judge a GM by the efficiency with which he converts resources into talent, and by the people that he appoints beneath him. None of that gives him total control over the win loss record though. Therefore winning 99 games doesn't necessary make a GM any better than one that won just 89, or 79, or 69. You can only judge someone upon the things that are within their control.

 

Fernando Alonso, a Formula 1 racing driver, spent a season with Minardi in 2001, a team with one of the worst cars in the sport, and he didn't score a single point all season. In fact, he didn't finish 8 of the 17 races, and finished in 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, 16 and 17th positions in the races he did complete (20 cars start the race, top 6 at that stage scored points). By your kind of a logic, all that makes him a bad driver, since you can only judge him by wins and losses and all that. I mean, he can't be that good, he didn't even get to the end in 8 races, he never finished higher than 10th in any of the others. Useless.

 

Only he's the World Champion now. So what's changed? Not so much Alonso. He was a very good young driver back then, and he's an even better still young driver now. What's really changed are the things that aren't in Alonso's control. This year he had an extremely reliable car, and he's finished in 15 of the 17 races so far this year (and 1 of them he didn't start, the farce in Indianapolis in which just about no-one started). So he's finished 15 of the 16 races he's started so far this year. He's also had a fast car, if not the fastest, and in 13 of the 15 races he's finished, he's placed in the top three. He also placed 4th in another. And he's also enjoyed quite a bit of luck, with a good driver in a far quicker car (Raikkonen) suffering huge reliability problems.

 

But if you want to measure everything in wins and losses, in any sport, then you can only come to the conclusion that Alonso was crap in 2001 and brilliant in 2005, and it's lucky for him that he didn't remain such a terrible driver and actually got better.

 

Excellent argument. This discussion just underlines the simple fact that in the eyes of the public, winning really does mean everything.

[AI]

I used to think that Williams was a brutal GM, his lack of skills most prominently displayed in the atrocious Todd Ritchie trade. However, I think Kenny deserves a lot of credit for their success this season. They don't have a huge payroll, so he got creative. He took a chance on Contreras that paid off huge. He also took a big risk on the Podsednik/Lee deal that worked out for them as their lineup desperately needed an overhall. Finally, he brought in Iguchi who has been excellent for them. If you believe the multiple reports, he had a deal for Griffey as well. The guy may not always make great moves, but he is active and aggressive. Would I take him over Hendry, probably not, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve credit for THIS season. The future will tell if he is a great GM or a GM who had a great season.

[Larry Horse]

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

 

Sure. Let's. 99 wins. Any questions?

 

No, but one massive complaint. This is just an expansion on what I wrote earlier, but here's how a baseball team works, baseball philosophy 101...

 

Resources > Talent > Performance > Wins

 

Yadda...

 

I look at it like this.

 

99 wins means the manager did a good job, and the GM who picked the manager and gave him the players also did a good job.

 

Well you need to get your eyes tested. The Yankees win 99+ games just about every year. And I'll tell you now that they have by far the most ineffective GM in the game, and I don't think a huge deal about their manager either. They win at the resource level, and just about manage to not haemorrage away all of their advantage going from resource to talent to performance to wins.

 

Now the Yankees are a very exceptional example, but the point is that 99 wins on its own means absolutely nothing. It bears absolutely no reflection on its own upon the GM and the manager. It only implies. If you want to find out whether the implication is true, you need to look at the actual job that the GM and manager did in a lot more detail. It could well be that the implication is true, and in this instance I'm not saying it's not. But I'm not going to say that it is simply because you and a bunch of other people childishly scream "99 wins!!!!!! Kenny Williams is GOOD!!!!!!! I want him as CUBS GM!!!!! I heart Williams!!!!!"

 

Luck also is a huge factor. Good teams have good luck, bad teams usually don't. Neither the manager or GM can control that.

 

Now you immediately contradict yourself, and throw in a tired "good teams have good luck" Tim McCarver-esque cliché for good measure. If a GM can't control luck, and luck is a huge factor, and it's possible that the White Sox were lucky this year, why all the drooling over Kenny Williams? Or have you come to the conclusion that the White Sox weren't lucky this year? On what basis? Show your working.

 

Williams and Ozzie did a good job this year, and Hendry and Baker did not.

 

More grossly simplified conclusions based on absolutely nothing. You'recome to your conclusion and aren't able or willing to say why beyond throwing out tired stuff about how "he won 99 games, therefore he must have done a good job". That's rubbish. How do you know that without Williams the White Sox this year wouldn't have won 107 games, or 91 games, or whatever? That's the only thing that matters. The effect that Williams had. Not that he just happened to be "in charge" when something happened.

 

Scheurholtz and Cox are probably the best, especially after this year.

 

Why's that? Because they're extremely efficient at converting reasonably limited resources into talent and then into performance, that and they've seemingly got a grip on the conversion of performance into wins. Seemingly being an important word, because I don't know if they do. The consequence of all that is that they often win a lot of games. But they're not good because they often win a lot of games. They're good because they do the things that conveniently often lead to winning a lot of games. There's a big distinction that is so often overlooked in America's quest to boil everything down into black and white, good and evil, whatever. You're force-fed the most tired oversimplified watered down rhetoric. And you eat it. Perhaps because three supersized McDonalds meals just isn't enough. Oh, no, more oversimplication!

 

You just don't get it. Wins and losses probably are the bottom line, but that doesn't mean that they should be. You can only judge a GM by the efficiency with which he converts resources into talent, and by the people that he appoints beneath him. None of that gives him total control over the win loss record though. Therefore winning 99 games doesn't necessary make a GM any better than one that won just 89, or 79, or 69. You can only judge someone upon the things that are within their control.

 

Fernando Alonso, a Formula 1 racing driver, spent a season with Minardi in 2001, a team with one of the worst cars in the sport, and he didn't score a single point all season. In fact, he didn't finish 8 of the 17 races, and finished in 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, 16 and 17th positions in the races he did complete (20 cars start the race, top 6 at that stage scored points). By your kind of a logic, all that makes him a bad driver, since you can only judge him by wins and losses and all that. I mean, he can't be that good, he didn't even get to the end in 8 races, he never finished higher than 10th in any of the others. Useless.

 

Only he's the World Champion now. So what's changed? Not so much Alonso. He was a very good young driver back then, and he's an even better still young driver now. What's really changed are the things that aren't in Alonso's control. This year he had an extremely reliable car, and he's finished in 15 of the 17 races so far this year (and 1 of them he didn't start, the farce in Indianapolis in which just about no-one started). So he's finished 15 of the 16 races he's started so far this year. He's also had a fast car, if not the fastest, and in 13 of the 15 races he's finished, he's placed in the top three. He also placed 4th in another. And he's also enjoyed quite a bit of luck, with a good driver in a far quicker car (Raikkonen) suffering huge reliability problems.

 

But if you want to measure everything in wins and losses, in any sport, then you can only come to the conclusion that Alonso was crap in 2001 and brilliant in 2005, and it's lucky for him that he didn't remain such a terrible driver and actually got better.

 

Let me say a few things, Diffusion.

 

This reply to your post was not a personal attack on you. I don't understand your over the top reaction to what I wrote.

 

It was my opinion. That doesn't make it wrong or right, it makes it my opinion. I don't need to sit and give you my reasons for it being my opinion.

 

I don't need my eyes checked.

 

I don't eat at McDonalds.......ever.

 

Unless you're reading something I'm not, I don't remember saying Kenny Williams is good. I don't remember "drooling over Kenny Williams". I said he did a good job....THIS YEAR. And please also show me where I said that I wanted Williams to be the Cubs GM or where I said "I heart Williams"?

 

So now I'll ask you, using your logic on wins and losses, do you think a GM or manager should ever be fired?

 

I also accidentally deleted the part where you compared me to a little kid doing math with a calculator. That was a nice touch.

 

And mods, a little help here if you could........

[Diffusion]

Fielding runs over replacement player though: Pod 19. Lee 3. Is that not an improvement defensively for the White Sox?

 

i thought we were supposed to look past the complicated numbers.

 

Sure. Let's. 99 wins. Any questions?

 

No, but one massive complaint. This is just an expansion on what I wrote earlier, but here's how a baseball team works, baseball philosophy 101...

 

Resources > Talent > Performance > Wins

 

Yadda...

 

I look at it like this.

 

99 wins means the manager did a good job, and the GM who picked the manager and gave him the players also did a good job.

 

Yadda...

 

Let me say a few things, Diffusion.

 

This reply to your post was not a personal attack on you.

 

My reply wasn't a personal attack on you either. Just because I vehemently disagree with what you're saying and argued that vociferously doesn't constitute a personal attack. And I think you know that too, but crying "personal attack" is a good way of getting the conversation headed in another direction. Jeez, where on earth in what I wrote did I personally attack you?

 

I don't understand your over the top reaction to what I wrote.

 

My reaction is as over the top as your argument is ridiculous. And in spite of my criticisms of the opinion that you hold, which I've taken time to lay out in some detail, you simply give me the same old hugely flawed refrain. That annoyed me. The rational mind, if presented with what it perceives to be an unjustified criticism, goes about deconstructing the criticism. You just ignored it and carried on where you [or rather your torchbearer before you] left off.

 

It was my opinion. That doesn't make it wrong or right, it makes it my opinion. I don't need to sit and give you my reasons for it being my opinion.

 

Everyone believes that their own opinion is the right one, else they wouldn't hold that opinion at all. But most people when asked why they hold a certain opinion, or when presented with a contradictory opinion, have something more to offer than a repitition of just what their opinion is. Now sure, you don't NEED to sit and give me your reasons, but it should would help if you want your opinion to hold any sway with others. And if you don't want it to hold any sway with others, why bother mentioning that you hold any opinion on the matter in the first place?

 

I don't need my eyes checked.

 

This was a response to your "I look at it like this..." phrasing. I was speaking figuratively. You probably don't actually need to see your optician any time soon. Well, maybe you do, but that doesn't particularly interest me. Jeez, do you find "you need to get your eyes checked" in breach of your human rights?

 

I don't eat at McDonalds.......ever.

 

Congratulations. Then again, I'm not sure why you're telling me that. I think it's pretty obvious that I was parodying my own argument by addressing America as a whole with an extremely oversimplified stereotype...

 

There's a big distinction that is so often overlooked in America's quest to boil everything down into black and white, good and evil, whatever. You're force-fed the most tired oversimplified watered down rhetoric. And you eat it. Perhaps because three supersized McDonalds meals just isn't enough. Oh, no, more oversimplication!

 

That's what I wrote there. How can you read that as me saying that you personally go to McDonalds too often? The you is plural. I don't think America goes to the trouble of personally force-feeding you yourself, just you, Larry Horse, you and your special relationship with America's rusty silver spoon.

 

Unless you're reading something I'm not, I don't remember saying Kenny Williams is good. I don't remember "drooling over Kenny Williams". I said he did a good job....THIS YEAR. And please also show me where I said that I wanted Williams to be the Cubs GM or where I said "I heart Williams"?

 

Do I need to simplify absolutely everything for you? Look, here's what I wrote...

 

It could well be that the implication is true, and in this instance I'm not saying it's not. But I'm not going to say that it is simply because you and a bunch of other people childishly scream "99 wins!!!!!! Kenny Williams is GOOD!!!!!!! I want him as CUBS GM!!!!! I heart Williams!!!!!"

 

Here I take the exact basis of your argument. Then I add a little melodramatic hissy fit, I extend your argument to say things that you technically haven't said, like for instance that you're in love with Kenny Williams, that you want him to have your babies. This is further stupid mockery of your argument. However, at the same time, it should be obvious that this mockery is not particularly serious, because I am employing the exact crass oversimplification (not to mention annoyingly childish punctuation and capitalisation) that I'm actually berating. This, Larry Horse, is known as parody.

 

Criticising the bits that purposefully contain no substance at all (and only exist because I find parodying your argument more fun than just stating blandly what your argument is) for being insubstantial. Is that the best you can do? How about actually addressing the actual meat of my argument, the actual basis of my disagreement?

 

So now I'll ask you, using your logic on wins and losses, do you think a GM or manager should ever be fired?

 

Of course I do. Have you not read a word I've said? "Williams, like every single GM, has to be judged much more by the job he's done in terms of turning resources into talent and faciliating talent into performance (via appointment of manager etc.) as opposed to the end results of wins and losses." That means that if Williams, or any other GM, does a bad job turning resources into talent and/or faciliating talent into performance, which can but doesn't necessarily reflect itself in the disappointing win/loss record side-effect, then obviously he has to be fired, provided of course that he can be replaced by someone that can do a better overall job. The farcical situation right now though, because there is a widely ignored but hugely important imperfect relationship between the quality of the job that the GM's doing and the team's win loss record, is that there are a number of guys around in baseball that ought to be fired, because they're not doing good jobs, but who remain in power because their teams win just about enough games in spite of them! What a pathetic basis for someone keeping their job: that those around them are able to pick up their slack just enough that together they all just about keep their heads above water! Ignore the fact that if they cut loose the guy that's going his best to drown them all they might actually be able to swim to the nearest desert island as opposed to having sharks nipping at their heels! But that's the way it is. Look at Brian Cashman. The most ineffective GM in the game. Lemme guess: "his teams win 90+ games a year, he must be good!"

 

And mods, a little help here if you could........

 

Because, quite frankly, your argument needs all the help it can get. But, go for it. Try and get me told off for having the gaul to disagree with you.

[goonys evil twin]

My reply wasn't a personal attack on you either. Just because I vehemently disagree with what you're saying and argued that vociferously doesn't constitute a personal attack. And I think you know that too, but crying "personal attack" is a good way of getting the conversation headed in another direction. Jeez, where on earth in what I wrote did I personally attack you?

 

When I read what you wrote it sounded an awful lot like a personal attack, or maybe more accurately, a bunch of unwarrented insults.

[Diffusion]

My reply wasn't a personal attack on you either. Just because I vehemently disagree with what you're saying and argued that vociferously doesn't constitute a personal attack. And I think you know that too, but crying "personal attack" is a good way of getting the conversation headed in another direction. Jeez, where on earth in what I wrote did I personally attack you?

 

When I read what you wrote it sounded an awful lot like a personal attack, or maybe more accurately, a bunch of unwarrented insults.

 

Well why, Goony, as it interests me so, don't you enlighten me as to which parts you found particularly unsavoury.

 

Or, better yet, actually focus on the gist of my argument. I mean, sure, what I wrote is absolutely plagued with some of the worst personal attacking since October 2003 Don Zimmer, but in there, somewhere, if you look closely enough, you might just be able to find me making a point that has so far been untouched by even your critical eye(s).