23
2011
From Left Field: Terry Collins And The Moneyball Theory
An article by 
On this date in 1934, the Brooklyn Dodgers signed Casey Stengel to a two-year deal to be their manager.
Today, 77 years later, Terry Collins will look to the example set by Stengel in running a baseball team. Though they Mets were downright terrible during Stengel’s tenure, the fire and energy he brought as the first Mets manager rang true with the players.
Early reports have described Collins as “loud,” which is a great sign for the Mets. The last three managers, Art Howe, Willie Randolph and Jerry Manuel, were more soft spoken in trying to get their points across. Half the time, did we even know what Manuel was saying?
The Mets have some players in need of a jolt, and Collins will be the one to provide that jolt. If the player doesn’t respond, Collins will look for someone who will.
I just started reading Michael Lewis’ Moneyball, and it has been a terrific read thus far.
For those unfamiliar, Lewis chronicles the Oakland A’s front office tactics in using as little money as possible to field a winning team.
The strategy worked out very well in the early 2000s. Before current A’s general manager, Billy Beane, took over, Sandy Alderson was calling the shots.
Alderson came in as a graduate from Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School. He began the wave of “nerds” that didn’t know much about baseball but could use their knowledge to build a winning team.
Alderson placed the highest value in on-base percentage. Some baseball people look only at BA, HR and RBI, but Alderson believed that OBP was the key to scoring runs.
And he was right. You can’t score runs if you don’t have guys on base, unless of course you hit a ton of solo home runs, which is unlikely to win ballgames.
Alderson was notorious for finding a manager who would subscribe to his theory. He once threatened the A’s Double-A manager that he would be fired if his team didn’t start drawing more walks, thus improving their OBP.
Tony LaRussa was Oakland’s manager when Alderson took over, so you could only imagine the clash that occurred. LaRussa refused to buy into the new style of baseball, forcing Alderson to look elsewhere.
Sure enough, Art Howe was named the A’s manager, serving as Alderson’s puppet.
“Art Howe was hired to implement the ideas of the front office, not his own,” said Alderson.
That leads me back to Terry Collins. Obviously, Alderson believes Collins will support the theory or else he wouldn’t have been hired.
The Mets are i
n a similar situation as the A’s were: a team with a high payroll that wasn’t getting value out of their players. Before Alderson took over, the A’s had one of the highest payrolls in league with players like Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco and Rickey Henderson leading the way.
In the mid-1990s, the A’s new owners forced Alderson to cut the payroll, which is uncannily similar to the Wilpons’ situation. Maybe no money schemes were involved, but Alderson still had to do a lot with a little.
So the new goal for the Mets will be for Alderson to bring in players with value and have Collins utilize those players to reach their full potential. Only time will tell if this plan works.
After reading some of the book, I’m starting to buy into this theory as well. As the famous proverb states, “If it happened before then it can happen again.”
Follow me on Twitter @JMMancari.
About the Author: Jim Mancari
Jim Mancari hails from Massapequa, N.Y. He recently earned a Master's degree in Journalism at Hofstra University. He is a devout Mets fan and takes pride in his team, despite their lack of success over the last few years. Like all Mets fans, Jim has plenty of hope. He also writes as the sports reporter for the Brooklyn Tablet newspaper and the senior editor of metroBASEBALL Magazine. Click my name to view my personal website.
125 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- Mr North Jersey: on Mets Offense Comes Up Empty In 4-0 Loss To Reds: I have to give props to Niese....
- gary s: on Mets Offense Comes Up Empty In 4-0 Loss To Reds: If someone locked the doors to Citifield...
- Joey D.: on Mets Offense Comes Up Empty In 4-0 Loss To Reds: Sandy noted those he "brought in" for...
- Hitman: on Choo Could Be Impact Outfielder For Mets In 2014, But Would Cost A Pick: I'd look into potentially bringing back Beltran...
- Sach: on Choo Could Be Impact Outfielder For Mets In 2014, But Would Cost A Pick: I think Sandy had better adjust his...
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5378 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
That book was intended for small market teams to compete with large market teams. The mets are not a small market team so I think trying to turn into one will backfire with severe consequences. Looking at the likes of all our new signings, ir reminds me of those really bad seventies and early eighties teams. When attendance dips to below 2 million this season and next, the mets will get the message. You cant charge fans the second highest ticket prices in baseball, and then show up with Boof Bonser, Brad Emaus, Tim Byrdak, Chris Young and DJ Carrasco and call it a success. That may fly in Pittsburgh, but not in NYC.
We’ve signed a big ticket free agent or traded for one almost every year for a decade and where has it gotten us? Tell me. You consider 1 post season appearance in 10 years to be successful? You consider 3 post season appearances to be successful in 20 years? With the highest payroll in the entire NL during that time frame?
Even the Yankees, big spending, free agent oriented as they are have 10 guys they developed on their roster and then used their farm to help acquire more.
The idea that you can just sit around and wait to see who might be available at a particular position or need every year instead of proactively seeking to provide that solution 3, 4, or five years ahead of time is what has caused us to have more losing seasons over the last 20 years than winning ones.
Planning ahead leads to more well rounded options and cost about 1/10 the price of the free agent and doesn’t cost you potential prospects down the road.
Plan B, rule 5, non tenders/waivers should always be scrutenized for good fits but the bulk of your team should come from the draft or IFA.
Even the Yankees last World Championship team’s position players were 50% under 30 and of the four that weren’t, three of them are going to the HOF.
Attendance may go down a little but wasn’t really very good in 2009 or 2010. Many tickets unused, concessions and parking were really down. The Mets easily lost 150 M in revenue the last 2 years from projected sales. If they hadn’t short circuited Mcillvaine’s build from within approach in 1997 because of attendance concerns we could have had 5 more postseason appearances easily by now and would have avoided the debacle that was 2003 as well as the fortune paid for it.
There is only one thing that will pack the stadium every day and that is winning. Signing a new free agent position player every year who is already past his prime is never going to lead to that or haven’t you noticed?
“That book was intended for small market teams to compete with large market teams. ”
No, it wasn’t. It was not a how to manual. It was simply Michael Lewis’ somewhat romanticized account of how the As did it.
“The mets are not a small market team”
What is the difference between a small market team and a big market one? Would you be upset if the Mets were run like the Twins? The Rays? The Giants?
“Looking at the likes of all our new signings, ir reminds me of those really bad seventies and early eighties teams.”
Right before the won a World Series?
“When attendance dips to below 2 million this season and next, the mets will get the message.”
If the message is “go back to how you did things before”, then we as fans really are that stupid and deserve a last place team.
“You cant charge fans the second highest ticket prices in baseball, and then show up with Boof Bonser, Brad Emaus, Tim Byrdak, Chris Young and DJ Carrasco and call it a success. ”
But it was OK with Nelson Figueroa, Luis Castillo, Scott Schoenweis, and the Hernandez brothers?
“That may fly in Pittsburgh, but not in NYC”
Outside of Chicago, I can’t think of a martket on Earth that would accept paying top ticket prices for 4th place finishes.
Spoken as a person who can mimic Sandy Alderson’s every word. What a joke. If all you can do is praise everything then you add no value, but then again we know that is what you are. A guy who spends his day at work fanning the internet because he has no work skills, so your inability to think for yourself is not a surprise. The only question is do you have shoe laces or do you need velcro?
Nasty, nasty. And what are you adding?
Shamsky, I’ve read the book and it was a general philosophy with some supporting technical views and substantiating evidence.
Why do you say it was intended for small market teams? Do you really think there are qualitative differnces between the markets? Do the on-field techniques and the selection of players that enable a team to build a better product know which market they are being applied in?
It’s a little different this time. OBP is no longer undervalued, so Alderson will have to try something new if in fact the payroll is slashed to the extent it was when he was in Oakland. If not, there’s no concern because Alderson’s already won a World Series with a huge budget (comparitavely). He’s won with a huge budget and ushered in the way to be very successful with a small one. He’s also made some strides to improve the farm, and by improve, I mean he hasn’t floundered away draft picks for a 38-year-old.
I believe Alderson knows what talents and traits ti takes to win, but don’t confuse Moneyball with a theory. It’s the title of a book, and nothing more. No one will ever be in Billy Beane’s situation again. No one will have his roster, his farm team, his budget, his owner’s and his scouts. The plan Beane followed was unique and geared to his specific situation. WHat he did can’t and won’t work for anyone else.
I thought we were done with the rudimentary book reports of “Moneyball” in November! It’s especially nice that you “just started reading” it.
Moneyball isn’t about OBP, it’s not even about competing with less money, it’s about finding and exploiting a market inefficiency. OBP is now overvalued.
The Mets are not going to be like the early 2000′s A’s. They are more likely, (hopefully), going to be like the mid to late 2000′s Red Sox.
Scary, I just read the same point made the other day in an article. You and this writer are in full agreement.
““Moneyball” wasn’t about slow, out-of-shape players, on-base percentage and ignoring defense. Rather, it was about exploiting market inefficiencies”
“The things that were undervalued when “Moneyball” was written were now valued properly, or possibly even overvalued. ”
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/7346/people-still-dont-get-moneyball
Hey Mike, give him credit for reading it. Some people can’t be bothered with being informed, it’s just easier to guess and wildly accuse. Jim might be a little late to the party, but we all know parties are better with more people regardless of when they show up.
The party is over in Oakland, Billy Beane has had 13 years to invoke his beliefs, they have gotten progressively worse.
I see the same thing coming for the Mets, and in New York
You did read all those quotes by other GMs that Vinnie B posted did you? I’ll repost in case u forgot:
Former Angels GM Bill stoneman:
“We look at OPS, but it isn’t the sole deciding factor to whether we want a guy or not. What it is, it’s a measure of offense. Shoot, if we only looked at OPS, a year ago we wouldn’t have gone with Scott Spiezio as our first baseman.What we rely on very heavily are our own judgments and the judgments of our scouting people. We’re a scouting organization, and we really lean on our pro scouts as to what they see in a player. It’s really not what the guy did last year; it’s what you think he’s going to do this year or in the future.”
White Sox GM kenny Williams:
“I lean on my scouts, first and foremost. After my scouts tell me this is a player we should have interest in, I’ve got a few different methods in how we come to decisions.
I’m an old football guy, so I believe in film. I’ve spent a lot of hours watching film and breaking down some of the things numbers don’t tell you that scouts can’t see with the naked eye.”
former d-backs GM Joe Garagiola Jr:
“Maybe I’m hopelessly old school in this regard, but to me statistics that you can derive from sort of the basic building blocks I think have real value. I look at ‘Baseball Prospectus’ from time to time, and some of those stats are so arcane, dense, impenetrable–whatever the word you want to use is. I guess this is meaningful to somebody, but not me. It drills down so deeply, it’s like, ‘OK, when you hit the bottom, there are three people in the world that this matters to.’ ”
And those guys actually WON something unlike Billy Beane.
HOF GM Pat Gillick:
“I think you have to watch the game. The statistics tell you one thing and they don’t want anything happening emotionally on the field or anything on the field to really tinker with those statistics sometimes. So I think you have to use both. … I think you have to see the player and you have to see him on the field—how he plays the game. Is he intense? Does he have passion? Get his body language. See how he interacts with the other players on the team.”
special assistant to Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr Charley Kerfeld:
“I think defensive statistics are the most unpredictable stats there are. And since I’ve been here, we don’t have an in-house stats guy and I kind of feel we never will. We’re not a statistics-driven organization by any means. I’m not against statistics. Everybody has their own way of doing things. But the Phillies believe in what our scouts see and what our eyes tell us and what our people tell us.”
Vinnie, I hope you don’t mind. Thanks
Yeah, I read five or six select quotes. I can also find five or six select quotes pro-sabermetrics. Doesn’t make either of our cases. That party’s not over in Oakland. Beane had a tremendously successful run, then his exploitation of the market caught up to him. He needed to rebuild and find a new way to win, and it looks like he might have found it. He only had three losing seasons after his run of success and the A’s went .500 last year, and good improvement. In year five, the A’s are a lot of “expert’s” pick to make the playoffs.
The sign of a good GM is to know how to change with the times. When the winning trait was undervalued, he exploited it. When it wasn’t and his budget couldn’t compete to continue operating that way, he looked for a new method. Unfortunately for some small-picture people, losing seasons are unacceptable. But it’s very diffcult to change team philosophies and win with a new one in one off-season.
And as far as I can tell, Stoneman, Williams and Garagiola all have exactly the same amount of WS rings as Alderson.
Alderson won his World Series before he got into Moneyball. He had a nice roster too and one of the greatest closers in baseball histor….nothing to do with moneyball or saber.
Just good baseball by good players.
Winning has existed before any science of studying marginal ballplayers ever came about and winning will continue to exist without it. You don’t need to follow these principles to win. You can do the same thing with good old fashioned scouting and smart baseball.
I don’t know where you got that info, but Alderson was using early sabermetrics in the 80′s.
I thought he turned to it in the mid 90s….can u prove that he followed sabermetrics in the 80s?
Doesn’t matter still, he had Ricky Henderson, Mark Macgwire, Jose Canseco, Dave Stewart, Dennis Eckersley.
He was using Total Offensive Production, a metrics he handed down to Beane. Ask Vinny if he can prove it. It was in the article he cherry picked those quotes from. But conveniently neglected to mention it.
Any metric would work good with Ricky Henderson, Mark MacGwire, Jose Canseco and Carney Lansford as your top 4 hitters. Top that off with Dave Steward and close it with Dennis Eckersley..give me an metric..i’ll make it look good.
You think naming good player disproves sabermetrics, but you’re wrong. The difference is, I can find tons of guys with comparable batting averages or RBI totals to those top four guys that did little to help their teams. But you can’t find anyone with similar OPS that DIDN’T help their teams. BA and RBIs are right sometimes. OPS and others are right all the time.
Sure you can find tons all over the place. but getting the right mix on the same team is not so easy. On a different subject, OPS is a terrible state because it doesn’t tell you the difference in HR/D/T a hitter has.
OPS is the perfect text msg stat if u just want a quick overview of a player, but an OPS can mean different things for different players since you can’t tell the difference between HR and doubles with that stat
I don’t love OPS because it weighs OBP and SLG% the same and they’re obviously not equal in weight. But it’s the only stat we have that combines the two most important qualities in a hitter. I prefer to look at both seperately because a .450/.350 hitter is more valuable than .400/.400 hitter as far as two .800 OPS hitters go.
And as far as the difference between HRs and doubles go, it all count’s the same in run production. A .500 SLG is very good, no matter how you slice it.
HR and doubles may account for the same as far as run production goes in your opinion but I don’t agree with that at all.
And not only that, a HR hitter and a Doubles hitter are 2 entirely different animals. Howie Kendrick led the majors in doubles w/41..i’m not throwing him in the same statistical pool as the major leagues leader in HRs.
Getting the right “mix on a team” is almost impossible when you limit yourself to only those players who are free agents every year.
It is next to impossible to build a well conceived roster by limiting yourself in this manner.
It’s not an opinion. Kendrick had a .407 SLG%. He accrued as many bases, whether he did it with 41 doubles and 10 home runs or 21 doubles and 20 home runs.
What really stands out to me the most about those 4 World Series winning teams is the age of their position players. LAA, ChiSox, Philly all had their starting position players between the ages of 26-31.
Arizona was much older but overcame it with 2 dominant starting pitchers much like SF overcame their age with a dominant rotation.
All of those teams received 30 starts from their top 3 pitchers.
To get your position players age 26-31 seasons, free agency is not really a great option. Sure some non tenders (Werth) or rule 5′s (Victorinno) can make a big difference but by en large these guys are not available because someone believes in them.
The only way to get the age 26-31 seasons out of the most talented players is to draft them, sign them as IFA’s or to trade for them when they are still in the minors, usually subtracting something OFF your 25.
In other words plan ahead and build a team.
Ya, I remember those quotes. Gillick, Stoneman and Williams all admitted to using advanced metrics as tools to evaluating players in conjunction with other tools.
I pointed that out when Vinny parroted them from before.
No problem Bayonne, I got some more good stuff.
HOF GM Pat Gillick:
“If I was fortunate enough to get into the Hall of Fame, it would sort of validate all the scouts I’ve worked with, and really what I’ve based my whole career on. I don’t think it’s an individual award. It’s an award that would recognize what scouts have accomplished.”
Here’s what Bud Selig said about Gillick:
“His skill for identifying talent and knowing how to build a successful roster is exceptional,Pat has always believed in scouting and player development, and I know that he will accept this extraordinary honor on behalf of all the scouts he has worked with throughout his career.”
Roland Hemond:
“Your scouts are still more vital than the actual stats”
Former MLB scout Bill Clark said this when he was asked if sabermetrics is harmful to the scouting profession:
“Oh I think so. But I think it’s also cyclic. The Kansas City Royals are a great example. They had a staff of probably fifteen, eighteen, twenty scouts. Excellent staff. They had brought the Royals up to snuff. They were one of the better organizations in Major League Baseball. But somebody convinced Kauffman at some point that they could save money if they joined a scouting bureau and kept their five or six best scouts. And then just follow the scouting bureau across the country. They did that and immediately the farm system collapsed. I’d have to go back and look at notes, but I think I’m correct in this…they signed one player in five or six years that they followed the scouting bureau. They signed [basically] only one player in those years who was a major league regular. They looked around and said, ‘Man, the cupboard is bare.’ So they put a staff back together and in the first year they signed Marc Gubizca and Bret Saberhagen, which wasn’t a bad pair to start off with. Of course, they went to the World Series real quick after that. So I thought that was a beautiful example. The cycle takes its turn. I think we’re seeing that sabermetrics and Moneyball were great, you can prove everything with statistics to a point. There are three kinds of lies: Big lies, little lies and statistics. Oakland has had success, but only half of that success came from Moneyball and the sabermetrics thing. And L.A. with their sabermetric GM didn’t do what you would call run anybody out the ballpark this year. Pat Gillick said, “I’m sort of the guy in-between. He said, ‘I believe in some figures, but I still believe eighty percent of my scouts and twenty percent in stats.’ I think, probably, that summarizes reality. Albert Pujols didn’t get signed because of stats…it wouldn’t have worked. He had an average high school senior year to the point where he didn’t even get drafted. And he was drafted in the fourteenth round out of junior college. Stats didn’t take him very far.”
We always here about the sabermetric side on here, so I just want show everybody a different point of view. There is no proof that the “saber way” is the right way. Just because a few teams do good with “saber minded” GM’s, doesn’t mean that’s the only way to run a franchise. And even though people like Stoneman look at this stuff, they still said scouting was more important part of their orginazation.
Vinny what is the point of posting what Gillick said?
The Mets believe in Scouting as well.
No one is saying scouting isn’t important.
I know the mets believe in scouting, that’s my point actually. Even teams that a really into saber, like the Mets, don’t base all their decsisons on stats.
The use of Saber in the MLB is overrated. It isn’t as big as people make it out to be, that’s what I’m trying to prove.
It is, you’re just comparing it to t he wrong set. It’s not a saber vs. scouting thing, it’s a saber vs. traditional thing. If a team wants to believe in scouting 99%, fine. Good for them. So long as the 1% relianace on stats is on wOBA and not batting average. That’s all.
so i will ask you here as well then.
You agree that advanced statistical analysis combined with scouting has its use?
Unlike others that say it has no merits whatsoever.
I love scouts. I really do, but how can you pick a handful of quotes from a few guys to prove your point, and follow it with: “Just because a few teams do good with “saber minded” GM’s, doesn’t mean that’s the only way to run a franchise.” Why the hypocrisy? How do those six or seven guys prove that scouting is the only way?
You posted a long quote about the fall of the Royals and the main culprit was a scouting bureau. I don’t know why that’s supposed to prove your point.
Sabermetrics doesn’t replace scouting and whoever said that is stupid. Sabermetrics should be looked first AMONG STATS. Stats and scouting should always go hand in hand. It’s still a 50/50 split, but the better stats to look at are wOBA, OBP, SLG%, etc. Not batting average and RBIs. But the scouting part of it has never and should never change.
Well said.
I didn’t say scouting was the only way either. Why don’t you read what I’m saying? Did I say that?
Gillick is right 80% scouting, 20% stats.
Vinny why dont you say what you want to say then?
If your saying its about using both Scouting and advanced statistical analysis then I agree.
If your debating the percentage of one over another then I don’t really care about that except to say that I have yet to see the Mets say they are 80% anything to 20% of anything else.
It has always been about using both scouting and advanced statistical analysis to make the most informed decisions for the betterment of the organization.
Whatever the split is. I don’t care. So long as the right stats are followed. If I were Alderson, I’d hire 29 ML scouts, put one up in each ML city and make them go to every game. Scouting is integral. But I’d make them take their fangraphs page with them, not the back of their 1987 Topps card.
I’m not a fan of adavanced statistics, but regular statistics, yes.
Everybody makes it seem like every team in the league uses saber, and that it’s the right way, the only way to evaulate players. That’s not true at all. Traditional methods are used more than people actually believe.
Stats are part of scouting. How do you know who to look for or how to gauge their abilites if you don’t have some sort of objective metric?
Why are you so against having as much information as possible when trying to figure out who ti invest in?
Because if the information is useless, like how the adavnced statistics are, why do i need it?
And that’s why the Yankees, Red Sox and Braves are consistently the better teams. Look at the steps the Rangers took under Daniels. The Padres very nearly won their division last year. When you combine scouting with the right statistical analysis, you win. Look at the list of the teams with the highest batting averages and tell me how they fared.
Well Vinny since all you want to say is that Advanced statistical analysis is not as big as some people (which you havent show who you are even refering to) make it out to be.
Then that is a point that I don’t care debating since I don’t even know what you mean by “as big” to start with.
Since your not saying that advanced statistical analysis combined with scouting is a bad thing i don’t have anything more to add.
How are the Mariners doing under jack zduriencik? Depo got fired in his 2nd year….j.P never made the playoffs….What about those guys?
“How are the Mariners doing under jack zduriencik? Depo got fired in his 2nd year….j.P never made the playoffs….What about those guys?”
I don’t care about their mistakes/failures I care about what they do with the Mets.
When they fail for the Mets i will then focus on that. The same I didnt care about Minaya’s failures before he came to the Mets or Phillips lack of experience when he was GM.
Why people act as if the failures a man has with another franchise means he is doomed to repeat them is beyond me.
Right now the focus is on using the skills that the people hired have to the best of the Mets abilities.
When and If they fail feel free to get in line behind me in saying so.
For now I am looking at the positives that they bring and hope that where they failed in the past they will succeed now.
oh okay,I got it if a saber minded GM fails it’s not fair to talk about it, but if a saber minded GM has success, we write a book about it.
I got it now.
“oh okay,I got it if a saber minded GM fails it’s not fair to talk about it, but if a saber minded GM has success, we write a book about it. ”
Vinny 1st who is saying not to talk about it I am saying dont pass judgement till you see him fail.
2nd who is “we” in “we write a book about it”?
I didnt say write a book. did you? and what does a book have to do with allowing the FO to fail before saying they will?
“How are the Mariners doing under jack zduriencik?”
Not as good as the Brewers were with him. But, he’s only had his current job 2 years and has to clean up a big mess, including bosses that are really slow to accept change. Plus, its his first GM job.
“j.P never made the playoffs”
Ya, when the owner who hires you dies and the new owners have no intention what so ever of giving you what he promised, you are out of luck. Especially when the only big signing was when they put a gun to your head to give Vernon Wells an outrageous contract. And again, first GM job.
“Depo got fired in his 2nd year”
Because the Doger organization has been the picture of stability under the McCourts. He never even got a chance to bring up his farm hands. He just got run out because some media mooks there didn’t like him.
Besides, just because you are good as an assistant doesn’t mean you’ll be good as a GM. Look at Omar. There are a lot more responsibilites like handling the media and trying to deal with other teams.
“Vinny 1st who is saying not to talk about it I am saying dont pass judgement till you see him fail.”
Who am I passing judgement on? Alderson? I’m not talking about him. X brought up all the success that the saber minded GM’s had, so I brought up the failures that they had.
This has nothing to do with the Mets right now.
“This has nothing to do with the Mets right now.”
Vinny you post why saber is not as big a deal as ppl make it out to be in a mets blog that has spent the winter discussing the pro’s and con’s of the Mets front office and how they use saber and you want to say it has nothing to do with the Mets?
So when I said you shouldn’t pass judgement on Alderson yet then you agree with that sentiment when you uttered the words “Who am I passing judgement on? Alderson”?
Cool so the only reason you pased your quotes was to try and prove that saber is not as big as ppl make it out to be.
OK, well since you still have to show what people are making it bigger and how big is bigger to begin with I think you need to do some more legwork to make your point cause a few quotes hardly proves your point in my opinion.
Donal, I wonder if anyone can explain this to me. As I understand it sabermetrics believe that K’s are great for a pitcher. But they also say that K’s are just like any other out for a hitter. No difference. How can they be a big net positive for the pitcher and not a big net negative for the hitter?
Not to say that the slider David Wright waves at for strike 3 would be a pitch he could have a BABIP of .390 on but if he took it for a ball 8 times out of 10 and got a better pitch to hit in a more neutral or even a hitters count next pitch or fouled it off and gave himself another chance.
Isn’t that big, above average BABIP what is being “given up” when David Wright K’s?
How can sabermetrics credit the pitcher and not dock the hitter for the same event?
Because the BIP means Balls In Play. Strike outs don’t put the ball in play.
Strike outs count against the OBP and other stats of the hitter. BABIP is simply a specific situation where strike outs don’t apply.
Donal, I know BABIP is about balls put into play. What I’m talking about is how a K (in other words NOT putting a ball in play) IS measureably less than an out put INTO play. A K obviously is an out almost 100% of the time. If you didn’t K you would have a say .39 % chance of getting a hit. Therefore a K is actually costing you something measureable and tangible.
How can sabermettrics espouse a K to be no different than any other out when it measurably lessens your chances by whatever the BABIP of that hitter is? AND how can sabermetrics Credit the pitcher for a K and not dock the hitter?
Then you just look at the stats that do measure strike outs. Like the K% and such.
Its all just a matter of what you are looking for in context of the discussion.
In the case of OBP, you are simply measuring a batter’s ability to not make an out. In that case a K is the same as a ground out.
Like how batting average makes no distinction between a single and home run.
Alright Donal. Lets say that David Wright has a .390 BABIP. How can sabermetricians say that a K is just another out. No difference. When it can be proven that when Wright DOES put the ball in play, he gets a hit 39% of the time?
Damn, wrong block. Anyway
Because an out is an out. 61% of Wrights ground and fly balls have the same result as a strike out. In the context of OBP or batting average, they are the same thing.
Now, if you want to figure out how often he makes contact, that’s another issue.
No one stat will tell you everything you need to know. Its all context.
But if you can measurably prove that when he DOES put the ball in play he has a 39% chance of getting a hit how can you say that an out that produces absolutely no chance of getting a hit is the same thing? After all, had he put it in play he’d have a 39% chance of standing on first instead of a near 100% chance that he’s sitting on the bench?
How can a K not be at least 39% worse? and yet sabermetricians claim all outs are the same?
T Agee, if I can interject….”But if you can measurably prove that when he DOES put the ball in play he has a 39% chance of getting a hit how can you say that an out that produces absolutely no chance of getting a hit is the same thing?” Outs never produce any chance of getting a hit. That’s why they’re outs.
I get what you’re saying, you’re questioning why “an out is an out.” Outs of any kind are bad, and no one can refute that, saberhead or otherwise. If an out advances a runner, then there’s a silver lining. But no matter how productive an out is, not making an out is infinately more productive.
I can put it another way. BABIP is a resultory stat. It measures what happened in the past. It’s not a predictive stat. In this scenario, Wright has a 39% chance of getting a hit if he puts the ball in play. He has a 0% chance of getting a hit if he strikes out. But if puts the ball in play and it finds a glove, whether he weakly popped out or got robbed above the yellow line, it’s an out. Same as a strikeout.
I get that X, and thanks for answering too, and I’m putting to the side discussion of both “good outs” and foul pop outs and I understand that a K has exactly the same result as a line drive caught by an infielder. What I would like to solely focus on is just one question.
If the outcome of one event has a zero percent chance of producing a hit and the outcome of a different event has a 39% chance of producing a hit, how CAN’T the first event be 39% worse than the second?
In other words how could a K NOT be worse then giving yourself a 39% chance of getting a hit?
Oh, it is. Maybe I came in too late and didn’t get quite what you were asking. A strikeout is worse than putting the ball in play just about every time. Sure, a double play would be worse than a strikeout, but even the league leaders hit into double plays maybe 5% of their plate appearances, and even that’s very generous. I would always rather a hitter put the ball in play. I think I just didn’t understand what you were debating with Donal.
Thanks X, One thing I’m still confused about though is I have heard and read sabermetricans state that K’s don’t matter. That their no different than any other kind of out and then to compound it further I see that pitchers get additional credit (as I believe they should) for K’s even while they are insisting that, again for the hitter, a K is no worse than any other out. In other words a pitcher gets credit for a K over and above another type of out but to a hitter there all considered the same. I don’t get it.
Oh, yes, putting the ball in play is better than striking out. However, in terms of results, the ground out to the first baseman is the same as a pop up the the right fielder is the same as a strike out.
“Thanks X, One thing I’m still confused about though is I have heard and read sabermetricans state that K’s don’t matter. That their no different than any other kind of out and then to compound it further I see that pitchers get additional credit (as I believe they should) for K’s even while they are insisting that, again for the hitter, a K is no worse than any other out. In other words a pitcher gets credit for a K over and above another type of out but to a hitter there all considered the same. I don’t get it.”
Like I said, it’s a matter of the context.
If we were talking about OBP, then an out is an out.
If we are talking about how often a hitter makes contact, then you differentiate between them.
It’s just a matter of what you wish to talk about.
X, I know that. What I’m asking is why do sabermetricians, even possesing the knowledge of BABIP say that a K is the same as a ball put in play when a ball put in play (in this case) has a 39% chance of being a hit?
and a K has no chance?
Ok, now I’m caught up. I get it. As far as hitting is concerned, an out is an out. That’s not to say it’s not far, far better to put the ball in play, but if that ball is caught, what’s the difference? But because it’s better to put the ball in play, extra significance is given to the pitcher who prevents that more than others (more K’s). Does that make sense?
No one ever says to a hitter, “Hey, strike outs aren’t that big a deal, doesn’t matter.” Everyone endeavors to put the ball in play all the time. But at the end of the game, when your team has made 27 outs (or 24), it doesn’t make any difference what those outs were.
Think of it as the lottery. Putting the ball in play is like buying a ticket and striking out is not buying a ticket. Let’s say you buy a ticket and I don’t. You have a chance at the jackpot and I can’t and won’t win a dime. But if you don’t win, what separates you from me? Neither of us has won any money.
That work for you?
Let me try it this way. If you know that a batted ball, hit in fair territory has a 39% chance of being a hit, how can yo not believe that a strikeout (which has no chance of being a hit) is not 39% worse?
Why aren’t strikeouts considered worse since your leaving the chance of a hit on the table?
K’s are considered better for the pitcher (extra significance) but no extra significance for the batter even when he’s leaving the chance of a hit literally in the batters box. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Mathmatically the ledger should add up. Credit the pitcher for an out, give him extra credit for getting it by strikeout, debit the hitter for an out but NOT debit him for making it by strikeout? Doesn’t make sense to me, and yet you see it all the time in saber articles, K’s don’t matter.
I say they have to and the proof is two fold. Pitchers get additional credit and BABIP tell you what that K was valued at. If my BABIP is .333 I’ve literally left 1/3 of a hit in the batters box.
Isn’t the general idea of sabermetrics to properly value an event?
But BABIP doesn’t measure K’s. It only measures balls in play. I’m back to being confused. It’s always better to put the ball in play than to strike out because the opportunity for a hit exists, or at worst advancing a runner. But when comparing outs, a K is the same as a pop out or a ground out. If what you read compares a strike out to another out, then yes, it’s all the same. But if compares outcomes of a plate appearance as a K or a ball in play, the ball in play is always better.
I think what you’re reading addresses the final outcome of a plate appearance. But that outcome isn’t determined on a ball in play until the play is dead. So if an out is recorded, it counts the same as a K. 1/27th closer to ending the game. Putting the ball in play is not the final outcome of a plate appearance.
“You posted a long quote about the fall of the Royals and the main culprit was a scouting bureau. I don’t know why that’s supposed to prove your point.”
it’s easy. They had about 20 really good scouts, and when they got rid of a lot of them, they did bad. and when they brought the staff back together they were succesful again.
It’s not hard to figure out.
Ya, it is. Who said you don’t need a good scouting department?
Glad you agree. Scouting is way more imporatnt than numbers. Seeing how a player plays the game is the best way to evaulate talent. Seeing how the player interacts with his teamates, seeing if he has passion for the game, how they prefrom under pressure, that is way more important than stats – I’m glad you agree.
Vinny where are you reading that numbers are better than scouting?
I want to see what has you thinking this.
Just send me a link OK I really am curios to see what has you so bothered by this.
Thats like saying the car is more important than the engine.
And you can measure performance under rpessure in stats.
I really couldn’t care less how they get along with team mates. Plenty of great players were raging a-holes and were unpopular in the club house. If he hits, everyone will love him.
It is important to get an idea of a guy’s mechanics and if he is just getting by on talent or what have you, but you do need stats.
Scouting is and always will be the life blood of an organization. The KC Royals now have 9 of the top 100 Prospects according to Baseball America. They were almost certainly identified entirely by scouting. In fact ALL prospects on this list or not would have been drafted based primarily on the scout, cross checker and player personal director. Perhaps the numbers can help identify who is either under rated as a prospect or break a tie between two different prospects but having the physical ability to play in the Majors outweighs having sustainable numbers because the idea is always to have the best players.
Advanced metrics are useful in seeing who might fit in best in your line up, who’s results were more likely influenced by outside factors, who’s trending up vs. down, who’s likely to sustain or regress their current production or to break ties between two or more players/prospects.
It should always be the scout/player personal dept making the call on the draft/IFA’s but as players tenure up here gets more substantial the numbers can more accurately guage the better fit, the time before decline and the value between two potential free agent targets.
This is the biggest problem I have with our last GM. He was very good at identifying players but horrendous in properly valuing their contribution and forecasting how long it was sustainable.
If he had spent the majority of his resources on players he identified (anyone could identify Beltran, Pedro, Alou, Delgado, Wagner, K-Rod, Castillo and Bay) rather than guys ANYONE could identify he wouldn’t have spent the payroll into the ground.
He didn’t spend anywhere near the time, effort and money on what he was good at, he spent those things on stuff he wasn’t good at.
You need both, slanted heavily toward scouting in the beginning, reaching about 50/50 at the end of a team’s control years and increasingly slanted heavily toward the numbers after wards. After all you don’t need to have any kind of scouting ability at all to see the talent in the players we signed to free agent type deals but you do need to properly value them and make a determination on how long they may sustain their peak production for.
Because an out is an out. 61% of Wrights ground and fly balls have the same result as a strike out. In the context of OBP or batting average, they are the same thing.
Now, if you want to figure out how often he makes contact, that’s another issue.
No one stat will tell you everything you need to know. Its all context.
“No problem Bayonne, I got some more good stuff.
HOF GM Pat Gillick:
“If I was fortunate enough to get into the Hall of Fame, it would sort of validate all the scouts I’ve worked with, and really what I’ve based my whole career on. I don’t think it’s an individual award. It’s an award that would recognize what scouts have accomplished.”
Here’s what Bud Selig said about Gillick:
“His skill for identifying talent and knowing how to build a successful roster is exceptional,Pat has always believed in scouting and player development, and I know that he will accept this extraordinary honor on behalf of all the scouts he has worked with throughout his career.”
”
Awesome.
What contradicts the idea of using advanced metrics as a tool? Or anything Alderson has done so far?
And that Bill Clark quote is doing the same thing you two always do: Attack arguments no one has made. If anything, it is an argument against outsourcing your scouting, which Alderson obviously isn’t doing if he is hiring more scouts and assigning each of them narrower territory than Minaya did.
Advanced metrics is a tool for player evaluation. No one.
No one.
NO ONE!
Has ever said it was supposed to take the place of scouting.
what are talking about? What does this have to do with Alderson? I didn’t say this proves sabermetrics wrong, did I? where did I say that?
My my point is to show that the use of sabermetrics in the MLB isn’t as big as some people make it out to be. And teams who aren’t big on saber have been succesful.
Even teams that say “they look at them” or “hired a guy” doesn’t mean they base their decsisons on those stats.
So you agree that advanced statistical analysis in combination with scouting has it’s use?
Unlike others that frown upon it’s use entirely.
no I didn’t say “advanced statistics” I said stats.
80% scouting, 20% STATS – not advanced stats.
So, what is the difference?
Because a lot of the advanced statistics are garbage, and don’t tell you anyhting at all. Stuff like Like WAR, BABIP, and UZR.
Those are a waste of time, you don’t need them.
Viiny you said,
“My my point is to show that the use of sabermetrics in the MLB isn’t as big as some people make it out to be. And teams who aren’t big on saber have been succesful.”
So your not saying it has no use but that its not as big as some people think right?
What I was proving with those quotes was, that it isn’t as big as people make it out to be.
I do think however think that adavanced stats are useless, but that wasn’t my point I was trying to make with those quotes.
Ya, they do tell you things. the right ones tell you a lot of things. Just because you either don’t get them or choose not to learn about them doesn’t mean they are useless.
BABIP can help you understand how a guy hits .240 for his first 4 years, then suddenly hits .301 last year. FIP can tell you if you have a good pitcher on a llousy team or a lousy pitcher on a good team.
You know what is lousy? Pitcher wins. Especially for an American League pitcher. Saves are bad too. And RBIs.
And this stuff I figured out when I was a kid, before there was a World Wide Web or a Baseball Prospectus.
Fielding PCT the way it is traditionally figured is stupid too.
OK well on this comment,
“What I was proving with those quotes was, that it isn’t as big as people make it out to be.”
You have yet to show what people you are even referring to so there is no way to measure how big “big” is.
On this comment,
“I do think however think that adavanced stats are useless,…”
Many MLB teams that are way smarter than you or I disagree with you.
That’s how I found out they were useless, because I learned about them.
BABIP has more to do with skill than anything else. Pujols, Wright, ichrio, Jeter, Votto ect, all have high BABIP, why? because they are all good line drive hitters.
If you’re a pitcher and two hitters rip two doubles into the gap off of you, back to back, it doesn’t affect you’re FIP. How is that a good stat? It’s not.
But i guess all those stats are good for fantasy baseball. Just leave them there.
“But i guess all those stats are good for fantasy baseball. ”
Tell that to Epstein and Friedman. I guess they play fantasy baseball.
“BABIP has more to do with skill than anything else. Pujols, Wright, ichrio, Jeter, Votto ect, all have high BABIP, why? because they are all good line drive hitters.”
It helps measure luck in way. Its how you can tell a guy is hitting .302 because he’s a good line drive hitter like you said, or if he just had a really lucky year.
“If you’re a pitcher and two hitters rip two doubles into the gap off of you, back to back, it doesn’t affect you’re FIP. How is that a good stat? It’s not.”
What kind of stat takes a major change after 2 batters?
No one says any one stat is the be all end all of player evaluation.
FIP is also a bad stat because pitchers who don’t get a lot of K’s have a high FIP. People like Arroyo, Chaill, Garza, Garland, Matt Cain, and Glavine are way better pitchers than their FIP shows.
The best hitters in the league have a high BABIP, and the bad contact hitters have low BABIP – Look it up.
Its not just that they have high BABIP, its that they also have consistent BABIP. But what do you care?
“FIP is also a bad stat because pitchers who don’t get a lot of K’s have a high FIP. People like Arroyo, Chaill, Garza, Garland, Matt Cain, and Glavine are way better pitchers than their FIP shows. ”
Uh, Glavine’s FIP was usually well bellow league average. Especially during the the 1990s. It only really got shakey the last few years of his career.
Garza is still young, but last year was his only really bad FIP year, and last year was the damn Year of the Pitcher. the bar was a little higher than normal. Most experts agree that Garza will still be one of the better pitchers in the league.
Matt Cain is also well bellow league average for FIP.
Even before I got into “sabermetrics” I wasn’t an Arroyo fan. I figured he was over rated. But that is probably because I find him annoying with his guitar and his dreads and stuff. Go play hacky sack in the Quad, slacker.
Garland looks to be in the same boat, cashing in on 3 good years and running on reputation.
And do you mean Cahill? As in Trevor? As in the guy in Oakland that doesn’t even have a full season under his belt?
30 starts in a season isn’t a full year? Okay.
Sure those guys FIP’s are below average but Cain, and Glavine are well ABOVE average. they are BETTER pitchers than what their FIP says they are.
Meh, he did start last year in AAA. Besides, 2 years. Give him some time. He’s too young to make a final judgement.
And what do you mean they are better than their FIP? Their FIPs are really good. We know they are really good.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Ya, right. If Alderson wasn’t tied to “Moneyball” we’d still be having this conversation. You want me to believe that?
All you are proving is that you don’t understand what you are arguing about.
Ya, I think you’re the one that doesn’t understand what you’re agruing about.
whats the difference?
Yep Vinnie,
it’s gonna be interesting to see how our broadcast team responds daily to a philosophy that they themselves don’t believe in. Now it’s infected our team.
Matt Cain 09 2.89 ERA. FIP 3.89
Matt Cain 2010 3.14 ERA FIP 3.65
Tom Glavine Career ERA 3.54. FIP 3.95
Matt Garza 09 3.95 ERA FIP 4.17
Matt Garza 2010 ERA 3.91 FIP 4.42
Arroyo ERA 09 ERA 3.84 FIP 4.61
Arroyo 2010 ERA 2.88 FIP 4.61
Arroyo’s FIP in 09 was 4.78 not 4.61. not that it matters much, but i just wanted to correct that.
And your point is…?
That they are better pitchers than what their FIP shows. FIP tells you Arroyo is below average starter, he’s not. If you use FIP you wouldn’t know how good those guys are.
Vinny out of curiosity do you know what FIP is?
You don’t compare a pitcher’s FIP to his ERA. You compare it to the league average FIP.
And why is ERA more accurate than FIP?
If I didn’t know what FIP was, I wouldn’t be talking about it.
because ERA tells you how much runs you give up. How is that not accurate? And if a guy year after year has a good ERA, but has a poor FIP, what would you believe? I’ll go with the ERA.
How could you guys NOT get what I’m saying? It’s very simple stuff. FIP makes those guys seem not as good as they really are, mainly because they aren’t big strikeout guys – that’s why FIP is a flawed stat. You can be a very goood pitcher and not have many strikeouts. FIP uses strikeouts so guys that don’t get as many k’s don’t seem as good as they really are – this is very simple what I’m saying.
I think that is a fair critique Vinny that you make about FIP. I wanted to be sure you was aware what FIP is since you seem to want to bring it up.
Like all stats when used properly in combination with other things it can help paint a clearer picture.
The thing you keep saying that I don’t get is that
1. You suggest ppl r saying stats are more important than scouting in MLB.
2. That people are making advanced statistical analysis out to be bigger than it is.
On point 1 I have yet to see ppl that matter in MLB say stats r more important than scouting and on point 2 i have no idea what ppl u r refering to and what how bigger “bigger” is?
“because ERA tells you how much runs you give up.”
No, it tells you how many earned runs your team gave up while you pitched
” How is that not accurate? ”
Because the 7 guys behind you have quite a bit of influence over that. If you have a flat footed short stop or a center fielder who makes lousy breaks for the ball, you’ll see more balls land for hits.
“And if a guy year after year has a good ERA, but has a poor FIP,”
How often does that happen?
” what would you believe?”
I’ll have to look at the whole picture. But, generally, FIP is a better indicator of the individual’s performance.
” I’ll go with the ERA.”
What if it was the other way around? What if a guy has a lot of Ks, few BBs, few HRs, but an ERA over 4.50. What do you make of that?
“1. You suggest ppl r saying stats are more important than scouting in MLB.”
Yes, some people believe that. We see people on here all the time say how they like only objective information, and how we can’t trust our own eyes to evaulate players.
“2. That people are making advanced statistical analysis out to be bigger than it is.”
Yes they are. Like when people say “every team has hired stats guys”. they make it seem like every team in the MLB bases a lot of their decsisions on sabermetrics, and thinks like them – That’s not true, and that’s the point I’m trying to make here. I know for a fact that Stoneman, Williams, Garigola JR, Gillick, Phillies orginazation, and a lot of other GM’s, do not share the beliefs of somebody like a Martin, Donal, or a Extreem. The GM’s I have quoted, have tradtional beliefs. They don’t have this “new way of thinking” that we see people on here have – and they have had a lot of success.
all i can say Vinny is I have yet to see what you say you see. maybe next time you see it you can point it out? rite now until u can show me otherwise i just dont see the things you claim to see.
About BABIP, here’s something interesting I found. I got it from an artcile on Amazin Avenue.
Gary: Can I say something about sabermetrics?
Ron: Yes.
Gary: Because we don’t talk about sabermetrics very often. And you know I think there are certain metrics that have come into play that are useful. But I think sometimes the people that are adherent to sabermetrics overrate the importance of them. In David Wright’s case, David has struck out a ton this year. Struck out 91 times. And yet he’s hitting well over .300. Now, one of the stats that the sabermetrics people like to throw at you is batting average on balls in play. And if you have a particularly high batting average on balls in play, they like to think that it’s because you’re lucky. In other words, if you have a high batting average on balls in play, it shouldn’t be that high, which means you’re having a fortunate year and you’ll come back down again.
Gary: Conversely, if a pitcher has a particularly low batting average on balls in play, they like to tell you it’s going to rise eventually. Well, to me that doesn’t make any sense. Certain guys hit the ball harder than other guys hit it. Certain pitchers induce more groundballs or more weakly hit balls than others. That’s part of what you’re trying to do. Am I totally off base with that?
Ron: No I totally agree with you, I think that for the average hitter, to have a high average putting balls in play, it’s probably because they do have some lucky hits. But certain hitters, like Wright, hit the ball hard almost all the time.
Gary Cohen is right, that’s exactly what I was trying to say earlier.
That’s Gary Choen and Ron Darling. Just want to clear that up.
Yes Vinnie,
it’s gonna be interesting to see how our broadcast team responds daily to a philosophy that they themselves don’t believe in. Now it’s infected our team.
Either Gary talked to someone who didn’t know how to apply BABIP, or he didn’t understand it. David Wright’s BABIP is usually well above the league average. So, if he puts up a .330 BABIP this year while the league average is around .300, you don’t say “he was just lucky this year”. Converesly, if Wright’s BABIP gets to at or bellow league average, then you can say he was unlucky.
If, however, player X is usually around league average and one year he gets it up to .330, then you say he’s lucky.
You have to remember context and the big picture.
If Wright’s BABIP drops to about .300, maybe it will be because he isn’t hitting the ball as hard as he did in the other years? And let’s say if a hitter raises his BABIP, maybe it will be because he’s hitting the ball harder than he did in years past?
So, either Wright has become a completely different hitter within a year, or he was a little (un)lucky that year.
I’ll let you decide.
He doesn’t have to become a different hitter. He could have a down year, he could go through a big slump where he isn’t making a lot of solid contact, he could be play through a injury that is affecting his hitting – it could be a number of things.
If its an injury, then you note its an injury. And if its affecting his swing that much, he probably shouldn’t be playing.
If he’s in a slump and not making good contact, that qualifies under bad luck.
Wait, how is going into a slump “bad luck”? If you go into a slump that’s YOUR fault – that has nothing to with luck.
Because if he is doing what he normally does and the ball just keeps finding the defense, that is luck.
The indisputable fact is that the Mets immediately after firing Joe Mcillvaine de emphasized the scouting and player development end of the business.
We went from identifying and drafting an average of 3 good future Major League players down to one every other year.
We also stopped identifying and signing good future Major League players from the International free agent market.
Both of these areas are what had provided us with the foundation of our success in the 80′s and 90′s.
We gave up the best and least expensive years in return for the worst and most expensive (and injury prone) years and then instead of being able to trade a player or get draft picks wound up getting nothing for the expensive player when his contract was over.
When Omar got here he beefed up the scouting Dept but gradually let it dwindle. We lost our best International scout and had one guy covering the entire NL last year.
Considering how many early round draft choices have busted around here can it be any surprise that we ran out of players?
Scouting the high schools, colleges, summer leagues, Especially the summer leagues, and international prospect leagues is the life blood of a baseball team, after all where do you think Reyes, Wright, Heyward, Furcal Cain, Alfonzo, McCann, Utley and Hamel’s come from?
Our scouting dept is being beefed up right now under “Saber Sandy” after letting it dwindle down by Phillips, Duquette and Minaya.
If you believe in Gillick’s ideas of building a team, like I do, then you will be pleased to know that the Mets under “Saber Sandy” plan to do it the same way which happens to be more scout oriented than the “talent evaluators” we had here before.
like moneyball said, there is no level of ignorance that wont be tolerated, even at the highest levels. plenty of GM have no idea what they are doing.
Okay, so you’ll listen to Michael Lewis, and I’ll listen to hall of fame general manager Pat Gillick.
How about you listen to Theo Epstein, Jon Daniels and Andrew Friedman as well.
fair enough
I will never again check the notify me by email box again. Sheesh!
Dude, I learned that years ago.