A Cub fan's worst nightmare...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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...

 

Wow, that went way over my head.

[Diffusion]

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...

 

Wow, that went way over my head.

 

Yeh, but you're short.

 

[/Personal Attack]

 

:wink:

[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.

 

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).

 

I'm not trying to get in the middle of this. I really have no idea what you are arguing anyway. I don't see what's gotten you all riled up. All I'm saying is that when I read that, I thought to myself, "wow, this guy must really be pissed at that guy."

[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).

 

I'm not trying to get in the middle of this. I really have no idea what you are arguing anyway. I don't see what's gotten you all riled up. All I'm saying is that when I read that, I thought to myself, "wow, this guy must really be pissed at that guy."

 

Well you've obviously not been paying that much attention to what I've been saying if you're not sure what I'm arguing anyway, either that or you're intimidated by big paragraphs of text, because I've gone to ridiculous lengths to spell it out. He's arguing that the quality of the job that a GM does is best measured by win loss record. I'm saying that that's a huge oversimplification.

 

And yes, I'm riled up. I've also explained why I'm riled up. It's extremely frustrating trying to argue a point with someone that doesn't even listen to what you say, just repeatedly repeats what in my view is an extremely flawed mantra as if it's gospel to him. But regardless of the fact that I'm riled up, I'm frustrated, I'm a bit pissed off with him, and that all that shows through the general tone of the piece, none of that means that at any stage I personally attacked him, and I'm even more pissed off at him for bleating about that just so he can continue to avoid the points that I've brought up.

[Larry Horse]

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).

 

Diffusion I see your point. You don't think a GM can be judged on wins and losses. I do. That's nothing to get "riled up" about. We disagree.

 

"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?"

 

I don't want to or need to "address the actual meat of your argument, the actual basis of my disagreement". You disagree with me, big deal. You've gone to rather great lengths to show why you think you're right. OK, I get it. I still will stick to my opinion that when a GM puts together a team and that team succeeds then he gets credit. And a team that succeeds usually has a good win/loss record. There, that's my reasoning. I'm sorry I don't have a 5 paragraph description to justify my stance. I really don't feel it's necessary.

 

And no, I'm not worried about my opinion holding any sway with people. I'm not here to get everyone to see things my way. I'm certainly not going to take every post I see that differs from what I've posted and angrily demand an explanation.

 

You have your view on this and I have mine. That's all.

Edited October 11, 2005 by Larry Horse

[goonys evil twin]

Well you need to get your eyes tested.

 

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!!!!!"

 

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.

 

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.

 

Those are some of the unnecessarily rude remarks that littered your argument.

 

I think you're trying to say Kenny Williams isn't that good. Maybe you're saying Kenny Williams may or may not be good, but we can't come to the conclusion on that based solely on wins and losses.

 

I think you have some good points, about how it's not just wins and losses, but the circumstances in which those wins and losses were obtained. But I also think you overcomplicate the argument and never come to any sort of conclusion, while instead just trying to rip apart the other person.

 

To me, wins and losses are the most important way to judge a GM. What that GM had to work with means a lot though.

 

For instance, 88, 89 and 79 wins, for a GM with a top 5 payroll and consistently increading budget looks to me like failure. While the same number of wins for a GM with a bottom 10 budget that is static or decreasing might be an accomplishment.

 

As for Kenny Williams, I don't think he did a great job. I think his team overachieved a bit this year, but I also think he has to get credit for putting a team out there that was capable of 90+ wins, especially when he had a midrange payroll.

 

What is your stance?

[Diffusion]

Diffusion I see your point. You don't think a GM can be judged on wins and losses. I do.

 

And all I'm asking is why is that. When there are so many factors that go into whether a team wins or losses that are completely beyond the control of the GM, why is the win loss record, a corrupted catch-all figure, an accurate barometer of the job that a GM has done? Is it too much to ask that you respond to that? You don't need to write a "5 paragraph" essay on it like I'd be inclined to, all I want is some semblance of a response, and not just "we disagree, I'm cool with that". For someone that holds and publicises an opinion, you're strangely reluctant to talk about it. Why?

[Diffusion]

Well you need to get your eyes tested.

 

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!!!!!"

 

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.

 

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.

 

Those are some of the unnecessarily rude remarks that littered your argument.

 

Goony, who's never been blunt in his life, complaining about a crude play on words, a parody of an argument, a harmless analogy, a fat joke on a national and impersonal scale and "you just don't get it". Oh boy.

 

Look, it was a bit heated, and sure some stuff is going to slip in there that's not exactly polite, but for crying out loud I've not shot someone's dog here.

 

I think you're trying to say Kenny Williams isn't that good.

 

I'm not. I've given Kenny Williams' merits absolutely no thought whatsoever. And I'd rather not.

 

Maybe you're saying Kenny Williams may or may not be good, but we can't come to the conclusion on that based solely on wins and losses.

 

Indeed. That's exactly my argument.

 

I think you overcomplicate the argument and never come to any sort of conclusion, while instead just trying to rip apart the other person.

 

The argument is complicated, baseball is complicated, not everything can be handily explained with a throwaway cliché. Until people accept that, then everything will seem overcomplicated to them.

 

I've come to a perfectly clear conclusion on the best means of evaluating GMs. That doesn't mean I have to come to a conclusion on Kenny Williams. It's not something that interests me at all. That's why I've not once here tried to debate the merits of Kenny Williams. Just the ideal means of assessing him, or any GM.

 

And yes, I was trying to rip apart his argument, mostly because I find it to be preposterous. But since when is ripping apart an argument a crime? You'd be serving a life sentence if it was.

 

To me, wins and losses are the most important way to judge a GM. What that GM had to work with means a lot though.

 

For instance, 88, 89 and 79 wins, for a GM with a top 5 payroll and consistently increading budget looks to me like failure. While the same number of wins for a GM with a bottom 10 budget that is static or decreasing might be an accomplishment.

 

I've made my position perfectly clear. The only means for judging a GM, in order of importance, are the effectiveness with which he converts resources into talent, the extent to which he facilitates the conversion of talent into performance, and his input into the determination of resources.

 

As for Kenny Williams, I don't think he did a great job. I think his team overachieved a bit this year, but I also think he has to get credit for putting a team out there that was capable of 90+ wins, especially when he had a midrange payroll.

 

What is your stance?

 

My stance on Williams is that I wish he, and the White Sox, didn't exist.

[goonys evil twin]

I've made my position perfectly clear. The only means for judging a GM, in order of importance, are the effectiveness with which he converts resources into talent, the extent to which he facilitates the conversion of talent into performance, and his input into the determination of resources.

 

 

But what does that mean. The words sounds nice, but it's just a bunch of subjective talk. How do you measure the effectiveness, the facilitations and his input?

 

Baseball is not complicated. It's very difficult to play well, but it's the easiest game in the world to follow and understand.

[Diffusion]

I've made my position perfectly clear. The only means for judging a GM, in order of importance, are the effectiveness with which he converts resources into talent, the extent to which he facilitates the conversion of talent into performance, and his input into the determination of resources.

 

 

But what does that mean. The words sounds nice, but it's just a bunch of subjective talk. How do you measure the effectiveness, the facilitations and his input?

 

Obviously it's subjective.

 

Firstly, that's the only way it can be. Talent can't be defined by numbers. Only performance can, and the translation is imperfect and somewhat unpredictable. And can you even define talent that well even without numbers? The principle is the same as "past performance is the best guide to future performance": "talent yesterday is the best guide to talent today or tomorrow". But it doesn't always work like that: talent changes, sometimes over time, sometimes just like that. Sometimes it's foreseeable, sometimes it's not. Of course it's complicated.

 

Secondly, you say "subjective talk" as though it's a bad thing. It's hugely better than corrupted "objective" numbers. There's a huge phobia among a lot of baseball fans now of anything that isn't defined by numbers. That's absolutely ridiculous. Numbers have their uses. They also are extremely limited, not least in terms of their supposed "objectivity". There is no scientific formula to which baseball perfectly adheres. Thus, there is always, at the very least, a degree of subjective interpretation regarding the application of the "objective" numbers. More often than not, it's a whole lot more than that, and I'd say you get ten times more flagrant misuse of numbers than worthwhile analysis. Really, you can't get away from subjectivity. And really there's no need to be trying so hard to get away from it. Certainly, it's imperfect. But there is no perfect solution out there, and there never will be.

 

Baseball is not complicated. It's very difficult to play well, but it's the easiest game in the world to follow and understand.

 

Well in that case perhaps you can give me a handy cliché to explain the creation of runs.

[Larry Horse]

Diffusion I see your point. You don't think a GM can be judged on wins and losses. I do.

 

And all I'm asking is why is that. When there are so many factors that go into whether a team wins or losses that are completely beyond the control of the GM, why is the win loss record, a corrupted catch-all figure, an accurate barometer of the job that a GM has done? Is it too much to ask that you respond to that? You don't need to write a "5 paragraph" essay on it like I'd be inclined to, all I want is some semblance of a response, and not just "we disagree, I'm cool with that". For someone that holds and publicises an opinion, you're strangely reluctant to talk about it. Why?

 

"I still will stick to my opinion that when a GM puts together a team and that team succeeds then he gets credit. And a team that succeeds usually has a good win/loss record." There, that's my reasoning.

 

There are "so many factors that are completely beyond the control of the GM" that in my eyes, wins and losses are what I look at. Every GM has do deal with the "so many factors".

 

Atlanta was able to bring up 17 rookies and still win the division. Once again, I would look at the win and loss record due to the players brought in by the GM to come up to the conclusion he did a good job.

 

I look at all the moves that Williams made. The players he brought in played a part in the Sox winning 99 games. That's why I said he did a good job. I look at a correlation between players brought in and 99 wins. Those players were brought in by the GM.

 

"The only means for judging a GM, in order of importance, are the effectiveness with which he converts resources into talent, the extent to which he facilitates the conversion of talent into performance, and his input into the determination of resources." And what is the end result of that statement? Wins and losses, which is how I judge a GM.

[satxcubfan]

While I sure do appreciate the number of responses, it sure seems that my intended topic has drifted wayyyyyyyyy off here. If you wish to discuss Kenny Williams' abilities (or lack, thereof) as a GM. Please create a separate topic and let this one die graciously!

 

Thanks!

[Diffusion]

Diffusion I see your point. You don't think a GM can be judged on wins and losses. I do.

 

And all I'm asking is why is that. When there are so many factors that go into whether a team wins or losses that are completely beyond the control of the GM, why is the win loss record, a corrupted catch-all figure, an accurate barometer of the job that a GM has done? Is it too much to ask that you respond to that? You don't need to write a "5 paragraph" essay on it like I'd be inclined to, all I want is some semblance of a response, and not just "we disagree, I'm cool with that". For someone that holds and publicises an opinion, you're strangely reluctant to talk about it. Why?

 

"I still will stick to my opinion that when a GM puts together a team and that team succeeds then he gets credit. And a team that succeeds usually has a good win/loss record." There, that's my reasoning.

 

Usually? So not always? Or is it impossible for a team to succeed in spite of the GM? Or to fail in spite of the GM?

 

There are "so many factors that are completely beyond the control of the GM" that in my eyes, wins and losses are what I look at. Every GM has do deal with the "so many factors".

 

And the factors are identical for all GMs? You think it's a level playing field out there?

 

Atlanta was able to bring up 17 rookies and still win the division. Once again, I would look at the win and loss record due to the players brought in by the GM to come up to the conclusion he did a good job.

 

We've already discussed Schuerholz. He does an extremely efficient job turning somewhat limited resources into a lot of talent, and he facilitates the conversion of that talent into performance extremely well through his employment of widely respected managers and coaches. A happy consequence of all that, of doing a good job as a GM, is a positive impact on win/loss record. But there are numerous other factors that go into the final determination of win/loss record besides the GM.

 

It's like the racing car driver. Fast driver, slow car, poor results. Does that mean that the driver's not doing a good job? Of course it doesn't. If you judge him on the things over which he has control, his driving, he's doing well. If you judge him on a catch-all measure of wins and losses (or placings) over which his control is only partial, then he's not getting the job done, so therefore he can't be that good. Which is of course ridiculous. You can only judge the guy on what he's actually responsible for. Racing driver's responsible for driving the car. Judge him on that. He's not responsible for designing the car, putting the engine together, the pit stops, the driving of other drivers. Don't judge him on that.

 

I look at all the moves that Williams made. The players he brought in played a part in the Sox winning 99 games. That's why I said he did a good job. I look at a correlation between players brought in and 99 wins. Those players were brought in by the GM.

 

Wow, the first indication from you that there's something beyond just wins and losses for judging GMs. You're looking at the players he brought in. Well, whaddaya know, couldn't bringing players in be classed as turning resources into talent?!

 

"The only means for judging a GM, in order of importance, are the effectiveness with which he converts resources into talent, the extent to which he facilitates the conversion of talent into performance, and his input into the determination of resources." And what is the end result of that statement? Wins and losses, which is how I judge a GM.

 

No, wins and losses are not the end result of that statement. Jeez, this really isn't that complicated. I don't know how many times I have to say this before this registers: Wins and losses are not determined solely by the GM's contributions. Therefore, a GM's contributions cannot be determined solely by wins and losses. There are numerous other factors involved in winning ballgames besides the GM, and these factors vary hugely from instance to instance, and cannot just be ignored if you want your analysis of a GM's effectiveness to hold any credence whatsoever.