Diffusion

The vast majority of BABIP decline is, I suspect, is a combination of 1) loss of speed to first base, meaning less cheap infield hits, 2) more flyballs as hitting on the ground becomes less effective (flyballs that stay in the park are turned into outs more often than groundballs, and those that leave the park don't factor into BABIP), 3) poorer eyesight and 4) slower reactions, meaning slower pitch recognition and less precise bat control, and so less very well hit balls. It's not quite fair to say that whether a ball in play goes for a hit is random, but pretty much. Certainly hitters don't have a huge amount of control over it, not in the long-term. At-bat per at-bat, sure, the majority of hitters can take a fastball down broadway on 2-0 and deposit it for a hit, but the trouble is that not every at-bat features such a generous pitch, and over the course of the season any hitter will see an extremely unpredictable distribution of pitches. Regarding Lofton, here's the decline in his BABIP (using 5 year stretches to try and drown out small sample size statistical background noise)... 1991-95: .343 BABIP 1992-96: .345 BABIP 1993-97: .361 BABIP 1994-98: .346 BABIP 1995-99: .342 BABIP 1996-00: .334 BABIP 1997-01: .320 BABIP 1998-02: .301 BABIP 1999-03: .301 BABIP 2000-04: .291 BABIP 2001-05: .302 BABIP

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

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

Giambi, Jeter, A-Rod, Matsui and Sheffield hit a combined .301/.398/.518 in 3390 PA, so they definitely weren't the problem. The Yankees basically gave 53% of their PAs to Gary Sheffield (career .297/.399/.527). Wise move. The trouble is that the Yankees gave 3015 PA to other guys. And they hit a combined .249/.306/.378. That's giving away 47% of their PAs to Adam Everett (career .253/.305/.365). Stupid. So that's why the Yankees didn't score so many runs. An absolute lack of depth to compliment a top five that's sensational.

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'm not. I've given Kenny Williams' merits absolutely no thought whatsoever. And I'd rather not. Indeed. That's exactly my argument. 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. 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. My stance on Williams is that I wish he, and the White Sox, didn't exist.

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?

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.

They do have the best offence in baseball in terms of runs scored after adjustments for ballpark. However, Tony Womack is what you're wondering. Womack really didn't play though, he had 2 postseason AB's. I thought Tim was talking about the regular season. I certainly was.

Well I like giving Cashman a good bashing more than anyone, so much so I've made "most ineffective GM in baseball" his new nickname, but I seriously doubt you'd be too much better. To surpass Cashman, you'd above all have to be able to talk Steinbrenner and the rest of the Yankee brass into actually letting you make the decisions. Two things: I didn't say I'd do much better. I didn't say I'd do any better. I said I could build a team that would compete with Cashman's I didn't say I could run the Yankees better than he can, I said, "if you gave me the Yankees payroll". No doubt the best work Cashman has done in his tenure is by not going ballistic to the press yet, and getting fired. I have no idea how I'd handle working as George's GM. Regardless of whether you said you'd do better than Cashman or would only match him, or whatever, my point still stands. And it's a point that you completely ignored in writing the following... All of that assumes that Cashman is in total control and is totally responsible for the product that the Yankees are currently fielding.

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? 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:

Did you know: Jeter is a lifetime .314/.386/.461 hitter. For his career he's hit almost exactly that in the postseason (just slightly lower in AVG/OBP), in the divisional series he's been much better than that, but in LCS he's been much worse, and in the WS he's been a little worse. ARod is a lifetime .307/.385/.577 hitter. In the posteason overall he's .305/.401/.534 (less in the division series, better in the LCS). Choke, clutch, choke, clutch. They're fun words to use, but largely meaningless. Did you know that ARod's avg this postseason was .133 and had no homers or rbis? That's pretty terrible if you ask me especially considering the money he makes. Yeah, his avg was bad this year. And so was the Big Unit's ERA. Some guys have huge series, some guys have bad series. It happens. From year to year that changes. And over time it tends to even out, which to me is why it's silly to say things like choke/clutch. A guy making $25 mil isn't allowed a "bad year", even if it's just a few post-season games, in my opinion. When you're making that kind of money, and your team is fortunate enough to make the playoffs, you'd better be a "money player". Yes, making a lot of money (something that A-Rod didn't actually have a huge amount to do with besides playing sensational baseball for years and signing his name when a stupid owner listened to Scott Boras) means that he really ought to be able to defy baseball's equivalent of the ineluctable laws of nature: the yo-yo effect. Why can't A-Rod fly too? Why can't he run at 300mph? Why is he unable to touch his toes with his chin? For crying out loud, he earns $250m, he has no excuses!

They do have the best offence in baseball in terms of runs scored after adjustments for ballpark. However, Tony Womack is what you're wondering.

Well I like giving Cashman a good bashing more than anyone, so much so I've made "most ineffective GM in baseball" his new nickname, but I seriously doubt you'd be too much better. There's a reason why I've branded him the "most ineffective" rather than the "worst": he simply isn't allowed by an interfering Steinbrenner to operate like any other GM. Whereas with the vast majority of other franchises, there is a clear distinction between owner and GM, it's hard to tell where Steinbrenner stops and where Cashman begins when it comes to the decisions that the Yankees make, and I suspect also that the boundary shifts from time to time when it's convenient for Steinbrenner to protect his own image. Ultimately the net effect of it all is that Cashman probably looks both a lot more stupid and yet at the same time a lot more powerful than he actually is. To surpass Cashman, you'd above all have to be able to talk Steinbrenner and the rest of the Yankee brass into actually letting you make the decisions. And while that's hard enough said, I bet it's ten times harder done. I'm not sure there are many people on the face of the planet, yet alone you, that are capable of even telling someone like George Steinbrenner that he's enough of an idiot when it comes to baseball that he should actually entrust his hundreds of millions of dollars to someone, you know, not called George Steinbrenner, never mind actually talking him into the whole thing.

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

It's also a familiar whine.

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!!!!!" 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. 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. 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.

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.

...everything I heard said the exact opposite about him "asking" to bat leadoff. Let's set the record straight... Dusty asked Corey to consider batting leadoff Corey considered it, and got back to Dusty after about three weeks or so, saying he'd be willing to give leadoff a shot Dusty, since it was his idea in the first place, consented, and inserted Corey atop the lineup

Dismissing absolutely everything that has "panned out" for Ken Williams as dumb luck though is equally stupid and ridiculous.

The job that a General Manager does simply cannot be measured in terms of the number of wins in one single season. That is a gross simplification. No, the job of the GM is to turn payroll (and other resources, such as draft picks) into talent as efficiently as possible, and to put that talent at the disposal of his manager as best he can. Free agency, trade, arbitration, waivers, drafts, all other form of talent acquisition, and 25 and 40-man roster presentation, that is all that there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less. It is then the job of the manager and the players themselves to turn that talent into performance. At this stage the GM is absolutely powerless. He can only hope that the job he has already done in terms of talent acquisition and roster management facilitates efficient conversion of talent into performance. For instance, promoting a player before he's ready for the majors won't help at all. And then there is the somewhat uncomprehendable conversion of performance into wins. Again, the GM at this stage is completely powerless, he can only hope that the job he's already done facilitates. The players and manager have some input at this stage, but I think in the general scheme of things that this conversion is somewhat random and involves a great deal of fortune, perhaps there are cosmic forces at work. But two teams over the course of the season can perform absolutely identically in terms of their final totals of hits, walks, hit by pitches, outs, strikeouts, home runs, errors, in both halves of the inning, but the distribution of all these events over the course of the season can lead to completely different results in terms of the number of wins. Why does a player get a hit there, but not there, there or there? Because a pitcher threw him a bad pitch there, but not there, there or there? Why did the pitcher throw him a bad pitch there, but not there, there or there? Why did the catcher call that pitch there, but not there, there or there? Why did the hitter connect with that bad pitch exactly right, whereas he failed to hit that bad pitch there, there or there? Why? Anyone that can explain all that is either Joe Morgan or a liar, or both. Raw resources to talent, talent to performance, performance to wins, there are inefficiencies at all three stages, some that are the product of ineptitude, some of competence, some of ill fortune, some of good fortune, some that simply cannot be eliminated, some that certainly could be done away with. It's complicated. And because it's so complicated, the bottom line is that it is completely RIDICULOUS to say something along the lines of "Ken Williams' team won 99 games in 2005, therefore he's a good GM". It may well be that he is a good GM, but you simply cannot justify it solely on those grounds, the grounds that in a single season he won 99 games. I don't have time now, but maybe I'll take a closer look at what exactly Williams did this year, how good he was at actually doing his job, raw resources to talent. Go ahead and do that yourself if you wish while I'm not here to do it. But that's the only basis on which you can judge Williams. This efficiency at turning raw resources into talent. It is often the case that such a competency in that area partially contributes to teams winning more games. Indeed, I bet that there is a significant correlation between a GM's ability to turn raw resources into talent and the number of games that his team wins. But it is not a perfect correlation, and therefore you cannot simply say that because a GM's team won 99 games, the GM by default did his job, and did it well.

I'm rooting for an Angels vs Braves series!

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently? Or do you want a guy that wins you 1.6 more games over the course of the entire season?

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award. The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo. That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY. But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP? That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true. Not just the best player on a 4th placed team, but the best player in the entire league. In the entire league, the best player. In league entire, player best. Best league entire player. Best entire player league. Derrek Lee. 2005 (apparently he wasn't this good in 2004). Jeez, it not complicated, even me understand, me not even Yank. Best player in entire league. What does the fact that the best player in the entire league played on a 4th placed team say? It says that the teammates of this best player must have been pretty rubbish. Beyond that it says absolutely nothing. Besides that he's the best player. In the entire league. ....... but not necessarily the most valuable. In my opinion, of course (and many others). I looked up "value", and one of the definitions talks about "importance". Which player was more important this year, Lee or Pujols? Maybe that's how you should look at it. Because being the best player on a team that finished 4th isn't that important to some people. So have we established then that Derrek Lee was the best player in all of the National League in 2005? By some measures. Not by Win Shares, for instance. Yes, but Win Shares is a pile of nonsense anyway. And even Bill James will tell you that. It's not a player independent statistic. To quote Sons of Samian earlier in this thread...

Here's how the trade weighs up so far for all parties involved CUBS Nomar Garciaparra (from RED SOX) Hit .297 .364 .455 in 43 games for Cubs in 2004 Hit .283 .320 .452 in 62 games for Cubs in 2005 Played in just 105 games out of a possible 220 games Was at times somewhat limited defensively due to his injuries Re-signed as a free agent after 2004, now once again a free agent, but seems eager to return to the Cubs Matt Murton (from RED SOX) Hit .253 .326 .367 in 24 games for Daytona Cubs (High-A) in 2004 Hit .342 .403 .498 in 78 games for West Tenn D Jaxx (AA) in 2005 Hit .353 .421 .500 in 9 games for Iowa Cubs (AAA) in 2005 Hit .321 .386 .521 in 51 games for Cubs in 2005 Acceptable defence Will not be a free agent until after 2011 season RED SOX Orlando Cabrera (from EXPOS) Hit .294 .320 .465 in 58 games for Red Sox in 2004 Played acceptable defence, but nowhere near as special as advertised Contributed marginally to the Red Sox winning the World Series Departed via free agency after 2004, yielded two draft picks which were used to take Jacoby Ellsbury (hit .317 .418 .432 in 35 games for Lowell (Low-A) in 2005) and Jed Lowrie (hit .328 .429 .448 in 53 games for Lowell in 2005) Doug Mientkiewicz (from TWINS) Hit .215 .286 .318 in 49 games for Red Sox in 2004 (mostly bench) Played useful defence Hardly contributed to World Series triumph at all, but made final putout, tried to claim that ball as his own Traded in Jan 2005 with cash to the Mets for Ian Bladergroen (hit .253 .349 .359 in 80 games almost entirely at Wilmington (High-A) inb 2005) EXPOS Alex Gonzalez (from CUBS) Hit .241 .289 .383 in 35 games for Expos in 2004 Sent to the Padres in September 2004, yielded no return besides salary relief Francis Beltran (from CUBS) Threw 14.1 IP of 7.53 ERA for Expos in 2004 Blew out arm in spring 2005, underwent TJS, still recovering Has closer potential Will not be a free agent until after 2010 I believe, though possibly 2009 if you accumulate service time on the 60-day DL (not sure about that) Brendan Harris (from CUBS) Hit .285 .345 .480 in 33 games for Edmonton (AAA) in 2004 Hit .160 .208 .260 in 20 games for Expos in 2004 Hit .270 .329 .417 in 127 games for New Orleans (AAA) in 2005 Hit .333 .400 .778 in 4 games for Nationals in 2005 Will not be a free agent until after 2011 at earliest. TWINS Justin Jones (from CUBS) Threw 20.1 IP of 5.31 ERA for Quad Cities (Low-A) in 2004 Threw 77.2 IP of 3.01 ERA for Fort Myers (High-A) in 2005 Has suffered a couple of arm injuries in his time with the Twins Still probably has the greatest potential to make the Nomar deal hurt the Cubs, if he stays healthy. SUMMARY The Cubs have got something for nothing if injuries ever prevent Beltran and Jones reaching their potential, which is a possibility. However, if those two do get healthy again, the Cubs are looking at a much less lopsided deal, even if it's probably still in their favour. A lot still depends on whether Nomar re-signs, and what the future lies for Murton. But, at this still early stage, as could reasonably have been expected, the Cubs lost nothing in giving up Alex Gonzalez, and, perhaps less expectedly, Brendan Harris looks to be a bust at this stage, though perhaps it's still not too late for him. As a result, it's looking good for us right now. The Twins got a good deal, I think. They saved some money, and have Jones instead of Bladergroen, which is clearly preferable. They also got a compensatory draft pick for Henry Blanco which was almost certainly a gift from Jim Hendry for a paperwork error in the original deal. That draft pick, SS Drew Thompson, may not have signed, I don't know, I just can't find any numbers for him this year. Anyway, two prospects for Doug Mientkiewicz, and an opening for Justin Morneau, I think that's good work. The Expos got a deal that's hard to judge. It ultimately boils down to which of Francis Beltran/Brendan Harris or Jed Lowrie/Jacobsy Ellsbury proves the more valuable in the long term. At this stage that's impossible to say, really. They also got some salary relief. The Red Sox got a World Series, though it's highly debatable as to whether or not Cabrera/Mientkiewicz had much to do with that. The Red Sox probably don't care, but right now I'd definately take what appears to be a first option on Nomar, plus Murton, over Lowrie/Ellsbury/Bladergroen.