An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
AcidRock23 wrote:to the 'job description' I think that you'd also have to include some type of 'profitability' in the mix, as the budgetary constraints imposed by whoever controls the purse strings are also a big part of what every GM has to do. It's one thing for Epstein to sell unloading Nomar on the Boston Globe but it's probably another to con John Henry into 40 mil for Varitek.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:Lofunzo wrote:
You may think so but the name of the game is winning. There are a lot of people that swear by his beliefs yet it has never won a championship. I reiterate that I refuse to bunch the Sox with them. I don't see how people can swear by him when he can't get out of the 1st round. You'd think that with that staff, they would have done it at least once. I'm not saying that he's bad. I'm just saying that between the books and the people swearing by him, I think that's a bit much when his success isn't that great when you look at the overall results rather than the relative results.
Depends on what you mean by "the overall results". I see a team that has many fewer resources being the second winningest team in baseball as being much more of an important factor in "the overall results" than a couple of series in October. You don't. There's too much randomness involved in a short series to give that so much weight, in my opinion.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:My problem is that you put words in my mouth that were completely the opposite of what I wrote. Sorry, but I have a major problem with people who misrepresent another person's argument either through a failure to read carefully or through a deliberate attempt to twist another person's words.
I don't understand what you mean by "I don't buy into the park effect theory." That's sort of like saying, "I don't believe in that round earth theory" You really don't believe that teams score more in Coors field than in Petco or Dodger stadium? I suppose if you really want you can not believe credible facts, but don't expect anyone to respect you for that opinion.
And yes, if Beltran was in Coors field, he would have hit much better. All of his stats would have been raised by about 10%. Now most park factors are not nearly this big, but there's enough of a difference that you must make adjustments. A player's stats are significantly impacted by the parks he plays in and you have to adjust a player or team performance to be able to make comparisons.
It's not a theory. It's a fact.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:Actually, I can think of a LOT of GMs that clearly don't know what they are doing. Syd Thrift's tenure with the Orioles clearly showed simply horribl planning. Bowden is clueless. Pittsburgh (Bonifay and now Littlefield) don't have any idea what they are doing. Those are just a few off of the top of my head.
There are clearly lots of smart guys and clearly several different ways to put a winning team together. But, to argue that Beane has not been about as successful as you could want your GM to be implementing a well designed and carefully executed strategy, is simply to ignore the facts.
GSes wrote:Strasil42 wrote:.gses wrote
3. Coming off a bad year, he is very likely to bounce back
wow thats some great logic.
i can name a lot of pitchers who have a bad season and bounce back the next one.
ramble2 wrote:As a rough first approximation, I'd define GM success as the following:
1. Putting his team in a position to make the playoffs.
2. Effectively evaluating and acquiring his team's needs.
3. Maintaing competitiveness year to year.
4. Giving fans a reason to have hope.
Obviously Moneyball isn't the only way to accomplish this. Neither is simply throwing a lot of money around. I give Beane a ton of credit for what he's done. How many teams in the majors have GMs who can say they've consistently accomplished all four of those criteria?
Some people want to add a 5th criterion:
5. Winning in the playoffs.
Fair enough, although I think a GM has a minimal role here. Any team that makes the playoffs has a shot at winning the whole thing. We've seen this ever since the wild card was added. For evaluating a GM, I'd say a better 5th criterion would be:
5a. Giving his team the tools to win a playoff series.
Has Beane done this? I'd argue yes, even though they haven't won a series -- yet. They've come awful close. Did they lose because they were missing parts that Beane should have provided? Obviously that's not a very easy question to answer ...
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests