As far as changing the argument from one to the other, I believe I have a case. When this topic began, Metsie claimed that Sandy never made baseball decisions until after 1992 and after you said you did some research agreed.

When I presented a good half dozen or so links to show that was not the case, then it became he could’nt have made those decisions himself. His underlings did all the groundwork and he got all the credit for it.I never said he did it all by himself without the work of his staff but I dug even deeper and found out even more than I originally thought. I had no idea that 2 prominent scouts gave him the credit for their scouting philosophy and success. Like you, I always assumed it was statistics that they used to make their decisions but it turns out it was more than just performance statistics, it was scientific analytics.

I never disputed the fact that the scouts are the ones that determine which players get put on the teams wishlist by a lot of what you showed with that link you gave, with the rating scale, etc… He did make his final determination from the list of players using analytics. He may not have personally scouted them but his handprints were all over the scouting philosophy and I never knew that until this whole topic was raised over a week ago and I read up on it. So i guess you can say we all learned a little something.

Did you have a look at the Paul DePodesta videos? I thought they were pretty interesting.

I don’t think you have to worry about these guys just sitting in front of a computer trying to build the team. The majority of our draft picks were scouted and drafted the total opposite of aa moneyball philosophy. I’m sure there were some analytics but there were also a lot of highschool high upside picks that goes against the moneyball approach to drafting and building a team, thanks God. Once again.

Also Joey, Sandy knew of Buchholz condition. That’s why he got such a low base salary. It was a risk reward signing and he was one of our better relievers until he got hurt. Nothing wrong with taking a flyer on a guy when you don’t have a lot of money to work with. Those are the types of signings you get. Buchholz went out of his way to compliment Sandy for the way he treated Taylor and his family after the depression reared it’s ugly head again. Hopefully Buchholz gets well and gets back on the mound for somebody.

Don’t you think an apology is in order for the uncalled for and embarrassing accusations about my being stubborn with evidence handed to me on a silver platter, changing my mind saying one thing and then something completely different, by my twisting things when I did nothing of the kind – not to mention the sarcastic comment about coffee for the staff?

“Okay Joey! I have to chalk it up to stubborness. The evidence was handed to you on a silver platter. Can’t change your mind even though the people involved said it was so. First you said he wasn’t making the decisions at all and now you’re saying something completely different. That he did’t make them on his own. Well golly gee, thanks for telling me something I’ve known about the GM position since forever. Who make decisions on their own without their staffs input? I’ll end it here before it gets twisted again. Next you’ll be telling me Sandy went on the coffee runs for his staff.”

Wouldn’t your feelings be hurt had I made such comments about you just because we disagreed about something?

Not to mention the following remark about my using the example of Dontrell Willis to point out there are so many things about players that can’t be measured through mathematical equation:

“So Joey, a regular baseball fan like yourself could figure out what was wrong with Dontrelle Willis but a Lawyer who became a GM of a baseball team could not have learned how to do these things? Interesting to say the least.”

Again, wouldn’t your feelings be hurt had I made such comments about you?

And notice I was correct in that this was exactly what the Mets failed take into account when it came to Taylor Buccholz and his serious health issues? When picking him to fill an important spot in the bullpen this problem (which had been torturing Taylor during his days in Colorado and probably beforehand) either went overlooked or was not taken seriously enough. Is it that Sandy and his organization becoming so much involved in cold statistical analysis that it is failing to equate in it’s proper perspective the important factors of the human character in general? Of course, poor Taylor is the extreme and not the norm, but it does point out the dangers of automation becoming too dominant a force in molding personnel. The flaws in all of us and certainly the character of the individual and the chemistry flow that makes up a team cannot be measured on paper.

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/baseball/professional/mlb/padres/article_46bd16d6-ecc9-5caa-a030-893e3f6bf3e8.html

I didn’t know that professional scouts gave credit to Alderson for revolutionizing their own industry. That’s a good sign.

I was an in favor of Jon Daniels or Terry Ryan when we had a vacancy but I’m impressed with the way Alderson has slowed down the rushing of prospects and isn’t singularly focused exclusively on just the upcoming year for a change.

I think this bodes well for our future providing he can follow Minaya’s prospects with elite all around talent and properly develop them.

You’re right I did say he made the pick of BIg Mack based on Bill James formula’s but what I found out as I dug deeper to try and get to the bottom of this with all the back and forth yes he did, no he didn’t was that his scouting staff gave him a list of players based on exactly what you said, tools, mechanics, the rating system and he made the McGwire pick base on the analytics. I know he wasn’t traveling aroud with the scouting staff watching these kids play. Rather than take a guy like Cecil Espy and I forget the other two but they were the toolsy, athletic type of prospects, he took McGwire based on his power potential and his on base potential. Same with Giambi.

The last link I gave you was actually a shock to me myself. I had no idea until I researched it that he had incorporated the analytics into his entire scouting staff. Fuson and Gayton claimed to have learned everything about scouting from him and that really shocked me. Also don’t get mixed up with the analytics being just statistics like I did. The analyzation is of plate discipline, walk rate, contact rates stuff like that. Not stuff like Batting AVG, RBI’s, and stats like that. I think that’s where everybody including myself was misinterpreting the analytical part of the scouting. It’s scientific analysis not performance analysis.

Where the contradictions came in was because of Metsie saying he made little to no baseball decisions at all before 1992 which we know is false and then it was he couldn’t have made baseball decisionsat all because he was a Lawyer and had no backround.

I saw an interesting link from a speaking event that DePodesta did. I have to find it and post it. I thought I did it lastnight but it didn’t show up.

Check this out from DePodesta. Talking about a bad trade based on his scouts assesment of a players bad swing. The scouts didn’t like his swing so the Indians traded him. That player was Jeff Kent.

http://www.greatertalent.com/PaulDePodesta/

We were talking specifically about the early draft picks in Oakland. I argued at the time that he did not have the professional skills to evaluate talent and, by his own admittance, knew very little of baseball on a professional level. So you answered with the following:

“Also Joey while your saying he didn’t make those decisions base on lack of experience, you’re failing to realized he is the founding father of the saber minded executives. He didn’t make decisions based on scouting for we know he wasn’t. He made his decisions on analytics.”

So when I provided specific details on how evaluation of raw talent is reached, showing that analytics is meaningless in scouting and evaluating raw talent you then just now said:

“For some reason you think this guy makes all of his decisions based on a computer which couldn’t be further from the truth. he said it himself that advanced stats are just a tool and that there has to be a balance between scouting, developement and the use of statistics. If you followed our 2011 draft picks they were based on the scouts”.

So first you acknowledge Sandy had a lack of professional hands-on baseball experience and knowledge to make those draft pick decisions. So you added that he did not make his decisions on scouting but by analytics instead. When it was pointed out that analytics is meaningless in judging the potential of raw talent, you now suggest he was versed in both – but change the discussion from the early eighties to that of 2011.

Your statements contradict each other, distort mine and actually change subject of the conversation .

Otherwise, it is fine with me that we disagree on where he is today. You say his thirty years in the game enabled him to develop the hands on baseball skill which he merges with advanced computer analysis. I contend that with his deep involvement in the administrative end required undue attention in matters of legal, financial, contractual, etc. with Oakland, San Diego and for the long period working in the commissioner’s office being directly responsible for all these activities simply could not have afforded him the extensive amount of time and training to develop skills of observation, insight and knowledge of player management and development.

So either he depends mostly on his computer analysis or the computer analysis and baseball observations of those below himin which he set the tone for how organization should be run. In any case, though he might recognize and appreciate that “advanced stats are just a tool and that there has to be a balance between scouting, developement and the use of statistics” all those qualifications are not part of his overall resume.

Which does not make me anti- or pro- Sandy. It simply is recognition that he has set the tone for his organization on how he wants things done and that his own personal role is more on the business end then hands-on activity regarding player personnel evaluation and roster decisions – even though the final decision rests on his shoulders. And if I am mistaken and he is indeed more involved in team personnel beyond just relying on the conclusions and recommendations by his staff, then to me it seems his own research is more through the computer.

I do believe computer analysis is more helpful for the untrained eye than it is for those who are involved directly in the game itself who already have an understanding of what the computer reveals in a statistical language and projection. For the baseball pros, the computer is more a data base of information which is more reliable than memory or notes. It might indeed provide some revealing information the baseball minds might have overlooked in a player, but that is in terms of storage and not analytic in nature. And, many teams recognize the need for extensive computer analysis if, for nothing else, simply to get an idea of what other teams might be thinking – sort of like intelligence gathering by countries.

Have a good one Joey

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/baseball/professional/mlb/padres/article_46bd16d6-ecc9-5caa-a030-893e3f6bf3e8.html

Thank you for the link. But again, notice it emphasizes how he changed the philosophy of the franchise – that being sabremetrics and money ball – but it does not mention anything about his skill coming into play in the selection of the draft picks, trades, etc. (BTW I’ve always said that the money ball value comes from the assessment of the sabremtric analysis and that they are connected, not one of the same). In all that has been posted, there is no mention from Sandy about his own hands-on observations of what he specifically saw in those players (i.e., their mechanics, their instincts, mental attitude or anything else scouts look for) that made him decide they should be his top draft picks.

As far as Willis, my small understanding of psychology was better than the lawyer who signed Taylor Buccholz, right?

Taylor started talking about his depression with the team psychiatrist Ron Svetich during his days in Colorado so his symptoms did not develop over night but somehow the signs of his condition went unnoticed when the Mets re-assembled it’s bullpen that prior winter. Buccholz was counted on heavily and was indeed pitching well during his brief stint with the Mets until his problems just overwhelmed him.

Of course, the Met bullpen is totally unimportant compared to the demons Taylor has been dealing with inside and all any of us should do is to wish him and his loved ones well as he works on being able to handle those demons better in the future so he can get back to having a productive and happy life.

I had been giving Sandy all the credit in the world for the moves I thought he made prior to the successful run of Oakland teams via draft picks, free agent signings and trades. I was also attributing that to Sandy having a keen eye and insight for recognizing and evaluating talent before his days of sabremetrics and money ball.

I was basing that on my “traditional” (what a pun, right? LOL) concept of a general manager when the finances were handled by the team’s President or Treasurer. My thoughts about Sandy and his career in baseball changed about three weeks ago when I became aware of and started delving deeper into the many hats the general managers can now wear today and learned that the title and responsibilities vary from team to team (yup, Metsi’s insistence on this got me to examine it and find out for myself what’s what).

So with the Wilpons financial situation being so bad and they chose Sandy to help get them out of the mess, and considering his legal background and executive experience, he is indeed perfect for the job they hired him for – which I believe is getting their financial mess back in order.

Now, to the point about Sandy being able to develop the skills and insight to mold player personnel after 30 years in the game, well I do think he has a better appreciation of the sport and understanding of it, yes – but not to the degree and magnitude essential to play an important role on an executive level. Even Theo Epstein, who also studied Law and is an ardent user of statistical analysis and money ball and did not play the sport, grew up following sports intensely and served as the sports editor for the Yale University newspaper among other things and thus had a background in sports more than of a fan and understands there are limitations to statistical analysis. He said to Peter Gammons, for example, that offensive decline doesn’t show up as fast in statistics as defensive decline. He wasn’t like Sandy who admitted he knew very little about baseball before joining Oakland as it’s legal counsel.

And as far as Sandy’s professional understanding of the game, I will again point out his answer to a question raised by the viewing audience during one of his first sit down interviews on SNY. He was asked if he was going to bring in the fences so the Mets could hit more home runs. His answer was no, the players were going to have to learn how to hit home runs at Citi Field instead. Anybody who knows baseball knows how ridiculous an answer that was, especially coming from one credited with being well versed in the game. He did not mention about the team building itself to conform with Citi Field, i.e., the emphasis more on pitching,defense and speed instead of power. His answer to the lack of home runs hit by the Mets reminded me of Sarah Palin’s response to dealing in foreign affairs (I can see Russia from my house and the Russians fly over Alaskan air space).

All this combined is why I believe Sandy’s skills are in the senior management field, not the player management one. I don’t believe my assessment is unrealistic and until one of us is able to get the confidential inter-office correspondence from Oakland and New York, belief is all we can go by rather than substantiated evidence. Attributes to him regarding his influence on others with computer analysis is one of executive leadership.

Also, I have learned a tremendous amount about baseball from not only playing and coaching the game a little but also reading books, looking at stats, listening to radio shows and participating in blogs. What makes us think Sandy would be unable to do the same to a much greater extent when his job has been baseball related for 30+ years.

http://www.metsfever.com/2010/10/i-have-questions-about-this-alderson.html

Remember sabermetrics is not moneyball and moneyball was about Billy Beane’s tenure with Oakland. Alderson is against moneyball and said he wouldn’t have taken the job if he had to run a franchise that way.

My biggest point remains that if you think that Sandy has not learned a lot about baseball itself as played on the field and is able to use that in his decision making is to turn a blind eye to 30 years in baseball. Do you think he never watches the game or never hears anyone talk about the game or never talks to scouts?

We are probably disagreeing on two things and that is fine with me if it’s OK with you.

First is how much of a role Sandy actually takes in the actual evaluation of talent and player moves. The more I’ve researched him the more it appears that his involvement had to entrenched with running the business end of a sports franchise than the actual player personnel aspect. That is where his expertise is and thus, the credit for the player moves attributed to him might be more in general simply because Sandy is the man at the top.

Yes, one could say that is only conjecture on my part. But consider the case in point of him being credited for selecting Steinbach, McGwire and Canseco as first round draft picks with the connotation that his decisions at least in part were based on sabremetric analysis. Now, with absolutely no knowledge of the insides of the game (which he never tried to deny) and with the understanding by scouts that stats compiled by raw talent is virtually useless in the assessment of raw talent, how could he have hit upon Steinbach? Impossible. Same thing the next two years with McGwire and Canseco. He couldn’t. His people could, but not him. He could have faith in their understandings and then rubber-stamp those recommendations but there is no way he had the keen eye and judgement necessary to participate in any assessment. And there was no saber knowledge for him to use. The pieces just do not fit.

The second is the use of computer analysis to formulate player moves. My disagreement is with the degree in which so many fans place on it – not the usage itself. As mentioned, when advocates of advanced stats make the case that Jeff Bagwell is the fifth best first baseman of all time, that Yogi Berra is wrong in his assessment of his 1957 performance, that a kid from Toronto called up in August should be compared to the all time greats of the game, that Jason Bay would still be able to hit for power moving to Citi Field., that a Lastings Miledge was going to develop into a dependable major league outfielder without taking into account his attitude problems, well that is why I say statistics used on a professional level to assemble a team plays a minor role.

How often have we seen a player with poor stats still be given a chance by someone who saw something in him that the stats didn’t show? R.A. Dickey come to mind?

I also saw something wrong with Dontrelle Willis early in 2006 which would never appear in stats but indicated to me that his career was going to go onto sharp decline. It was not with his pitching at the moment but with his sudden antics on the mound. He began running off the mound to get the return throw, became tremendously fidgety on the mound, including muttering to himself. He would often seem to be sulking – so unlike the Willis of before. Others disagreed with me but sure enough his career spirrelled downward and finally it was revealed he had been suffering with anxiety and could no longer pitch. A sad situation but something one whose emphasis on sabremetrics would not know and might ignore on the basis of what he was told.

So the above summarizes why I don’t place tremendous emphasis on computer analysis and money ball. After all, Tony LaRussa himself said what was depicted in the movie was quite misleading and scoffed at many of the conclusions drawn on how to manage a game by computer analysis.

Also, one must question how much influence steroid use played in the inflation of statistics (since both began hitting the scene around the same time) for so many players which would then distort the findings from that computer, making differences in players seem larger than they really were?

I don’t know that the Mets have ever employed a military man in the FO before. I do recall Art Howe speaking almost everyday of how the guys “battled out there” but I don’t know that that would count.

I’m reasonably sure that Sandy understands the chain of command pretty well and has probably learned a thing or two about players in his 30 years in the business and I’ll bet anything he has a pretty fair grip on risk vs. reward having served the United States in combat.