Hairyducked Idiot

I hope not. Good catch.

Edit: Before. I thought about that too. I'd be willing to take him off the list, but isn't he doing exactly what Friedman did, just with a bit more lead time? It was under him is what I was trying to say.

OK. Here is the list of MLB team-runners (mostly GMs, a few presidents, judgment call, feel free to sub in if you disagree) that I think of as being pretty competent and intelligent. Dan Duquette (Orioles) Ben Cherington (Red Sox) Rick Hahn (White Sox) Walt Jocketty (Reds) Dan O'Dowd (Rockies) David Dombroski (Tigers) Mark Shapiro (Indians) Jeff Lunhow (Astros) Sandy Alderson (Mets) Brian Cashman (Yankees) Billy Beane (A's) Neal Huntington (Pirates) John Mozeliak (Cardinals) Alex Anthopolous (Blue Jays) Mike Rizzo (Nationals) Andrew Friedman (Dodgers) Theo Epstien (Cubs) Atlanta's probably going to end up with another one. I could easily be convinced to add a few more to the list like Jon Daniels (Texas) or Josh Byrnes (San Diego). A couple of thoughts I'm trying to lead into. 1) I'm not sure that there's that much advantage anymore to having a guy on the above list, because almost everyone has one. And even a few of the teams that didn't make that list aren't really all that badly run. The Ed Lynch-level terribles have pretty much all been run out of the league, with no more htan a couple of exceptions. There can't be that many market inefficiencies left, and teams are rising and falling based on other factors far more than the quality of the guy at the top (competitive cycle, finances, variance, quality of the deeper organization). 2) I'm not comfortable with how we put guys into tiers inside that group. It seems to be based a lot on superficial factors and the luck of timing. Friedman is considered a no-doubt top-3 because of what he did with the Rays, but he inherited a franchise that had been soaking up top draft picks for a long, long time. They had a really solid six-year run, but the cracks are starting to show. Is that Friedman's fault? David Price (2007) is the last first-round pick they've made to show anything in the majors. Is that Friedman's fault? Friedman's being feted as a no-doubt elite GM because he took the old Golden Generation strategy and stretched it a bit further than Doug Melvin did. Does that really make him better than Sandy Alderson or Dan Duquette? The Dodgers are better off with him than Coletti, but how sure should I be that they're better off with Friedman than Rick Hahn? It feels like there's a bit of a cult of personality going on in how we rank these guys. We want to believe in a certain type of baseball genius (young for an exec, highly educated, uses analytical brilliance to find market inefficiencies, gives great interviews) the same way casual football fans want to believe in the all-American, clean-cut leader of men style of quarterback. Or maybe it's just early in the offseason and I'm bored and being stupid.

I probably would have bailed on them after 2010 anyway and become a Brewers fan, anyway.

Really? On a freak-out scale from 1 ("When I first started posting") to 10 ("Post-2008 playoffs"), this is like a 3.5. sometimes i wish you really had defected to the cardinals Me too.

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

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to. And I think that there's a lot of successful GMs out there that are all more or less fungible in terms of quality. Stupid question: Before Friedman, is there any good examples of a small-market genius taking on larger resources? Beane famously turned down Boston. The difference in resources has expanded so much in recent years it's almost impossible to make the comparisons. I'd say that even if the nominal difference in resources is expanding, the advantage of having that difference is shrinking.

So again I ask: Why does inheriting Bonds wipe out Sabean's accomplishments, but inheriting a 93-win team with Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez doesn't do the same for Epstein? I'm not wiping it out. I'm putting it into a perspective you are incapable or unwilling of viewing. Sabean also wasn't competing with the Yankees every year back then either. Did competing with the Yankees hurt the Red Sox? Because they only finished ahead of them once in the regular season and still did alright.

Using something as broad as just playoff appearances allows you to do just that. Playoff success is impossible for a GM to control (unless we want to bury Billy Beane). Regular-season win totals are tricky because it flies in the face of the "60 wins are no worse than 75" philosophy of rebuilding. So I guess what you're saying is there's just nothing we can do to improve the evaluation process and it's just the Wild West of focusing on whatever we like about guys. Maybe we really can't do any better than that?

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

I'm a big fan of using playoff appearances as a percentage of seasons in charge. I'm willing to accept some context, but you have to be really careful not to just use it as an excuse to get to conclusions you want to get to. And I think that there's a lot of successful GMs out there that are all more or less fungible in terms of quality. Stupid question: Before Friedman, is there any good examples of a small-market genius taking on larger resources? Beane famously turned down Boston.

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

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean. What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc. There is not, of course, one set of concrete criteria by which to judge this given the variety of contexts. You know it, and it's a stupid tangent. That sounds an awful lot like the same kind of reasoning that gives MVPs to the guy with the most RBIs. It's just the "we know it when we see it" argument, which isn't something the sabermetric community should ever be accepting as an answer.

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

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean. What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc. You are looking for a reason to keep saying stupid stuff. I don't see the point in judging Theo's purposefully losing seasons the same as anything Cashman has been involved with. Sabean's payroll has gone up sharply the past several years but he hasn't been making it every season. There is plenty to be critical of but you're like the boy who cried wolf here. I'm asking questions. Is it a bit concern troll-y because I have an opinion already? Sure. But it shouldn't be *that* hard to come up with answers if you're so sure I'm wrong. So Epstein gets a pass because he chose to lose? What about those final years in Boston where he tried and failed?

Ok. Are we judging on that? Because that knocks out Beane and puts in Sabean. What I am looking for is a coherent set of standards that create a top tier (Beane, Friedman, Epstein?) that clearly differentiates them from Sabean, mozeliak, cashman, Jocketty, duquette, etc.

Are you really asking what is so impressive about Beane taking that team to the playoffs with no payroll so often? San Francisco has been in the playoffs three times in 11 years and the payroll has risen significantly during that time. He inherited the greatest baseball player in history before that to pad his early numbers. You can make a point about this without being so freaking stupid. I'm just trying to feel out the edges of the discussion. OK, so Beane at 8/16 with little payroll and no Bonds to start with is indisputably great. Does that mean that Epstein at 6/12 with a huge running start and huge payrolls is diminshed?

It's just interesting to me how all these conversations about undisputed elite executives involve guys who haven't done much lately in terms of actual results. Friedman missed the playoffs two of the last three years. Even Beane's A's were bad for five years, awesome for 2, and pretty good last year. What makes these guys the head of the class ahead of Mozeliak, Duquette, Jocketty? Billy Beane's made the playoffs 8 times in 16 years. Brian Sabean, who nobody thinks is anything all that special outside of dorks who only look at rings, has made it 7 times in 17 years. Is that all that different? And if the pivotal difference is money, then why is Epstein's 6 times in 12 years all that impressive, given the running start and huge cash reserves he used to get there? What makes a great team-runner, and how big is the difference between a great one and an OK one?

The lesson learned has resulted in Epstein watching the playoffs from home for five straight years. I don't think the Dodgers want Friedman learning that lesson.

Giants really are Cardinals' kryptonite.

Yup. They played awesome. Probability is weird.

lol hockey

I was kind of limiting it to the good pitchers.

I'm imagining him coming up in September as a reliever and owning bones in the playoffs. you stole that from tree (or was it ssr?) I thought I was stealing it from imb!. I steal a lot of stuff from him.

I'm imagining him coming up in September as a reliever and owning bones in the playoffs.