caulfield12 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said: They're the perfect example actually. They held on to all of their prospects instead of trying to win. I'm not saying to do what the Cubs did, but a middleground approach would have won them a WS. They haven’t saddled themselves with albatross contracts, other than perhaps Kershaw at the backend. They invest the money that doesn't go into the starting rotation (where they were usually stacked up 7-8 deep) into maintaining their young positional talent. Their most impactful moves have been under the radar types like Taylor, Muncy and Turner. Drafting Buehler so low, etc. They almost never overspend in free agency. They take advantage of their proximity to the Asian and Latin American markets to churn out signing after signing due to their scouting tentacles reaching in every direction. They’re now the Rays on steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: How many games did they win last season And it doesn't matter because they still haven't won a WS since 1988. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: They haven’t saddled themselves with albatross contracts, other than perhaps Kershaw at the backend. They invest the money that doesn't go into the starting rotation (where they were usually stacked up 7-8 deep) into maintaining their young positional talent. Their most impactful moves have been under the radar types like Taylor, Muncy and Turner. Drafting Buehler so low, etc. They almost never overspend in free agency. They take advantage of their proximity to the Asian and Latin American markets to churn out signing after signing due to their scouting tentacles reaching in every direction. They’re now the Rays on steroids. Yeah, and how many World series has that won them? Oh yeah, zero. This approach has been proven by the Athletics, Rays and now Dodgers to be excellent at winning games and inept at winning World Series. Edited January 11, 2020 by Jack Parkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: And it doesn't matter because they still haven't won a WS since 1988. Playoffs are a crapshoot, consistently getting to the playoffs means you are winning. Your argument just now stated that teams aren't trying to win in favor of saving money. I ask you how many games they won this season and all the sudden it doesn't matter. Their payroll approaches 200 million, and you say Friedman is running the team like he did in Tampa. This argument is all bullshit and you know it 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Just now, Kyyle23 said: Playoffs are a crapshoot, consistently getting to the playoffs means you are winning. Your argument just now stated that teams aren't trying to win in favor of saving money. I ask you how many games they won this season and all the sudden it doesn't matter. Their payroll approaches 200 million, and you say Friedman is running the team like he did in Tampa. This argument is all bullshit and you know it The payroll wasn't what I meant. What I meant was overvaluing his prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Playoffs are a crapshoot, consistently getting to the playoffs means you are winning. Your argument just now stated that teams aren't trying to win in favor of saving money. I ask you how many games they won this season and all the sudden it doesn't matter. Their payroll approaches 200 million, and you say Friedman is running the team like he did in Tampa. This argument is all bullshit and you know it How come Oakland, Tampa and the Dodgers never won anything? You could point to the 90s Braves as well who won 14 straight divisions but one title with a similar approach to LA. Edited January 11, 2020 by Jack Parkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said: How come Oakland, Tampa and the Dodgers never won anything. You could point to the 90s Braves as well who won 14 straight divisions but one title. Playoffs. Are. A. Crapshoot. you have yet to name one team that favors $/war over winning. In fact, you have named four teams that USE $/war and win. the 90s Braves aren't even part of a sabermetric argument so quit trying to move the goalposts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Yeah, and how many World series has that won them? Oh yeah, zero. This approach has been proven by the Athletics, Rays and now Dodgers to be excellent at winning games and inept at winning World Series. They've had stacked rosters. They also lost to cheating teams in the world series the last two years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Playoffs. Are. A. Crapshoot. you have yet to name one team that favors $/war over winning. In fact, you have named four teams that USE $/war and win. the 90s Braves aren't even part of a sabermetric argument so quit trying to move the goalposts $/WAR wins games but not championships. We now have 20 years of data that proves that. Chalking it up to a crapshoot doesn't make sense because in 20 years one of these teams would have won if it actually was a crapshoot. Edited January 11, 2020 by Jack Parkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 58 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Sabes are fine if the goal is to use them to win the damn WS. They're not ok if they're used to squeeze money out of the players and fans, and that efficiency trumps winning championships. What in the fuck are you talking about? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 43 minutes ago, Minoso-Pierce-Allen-HOF said: Sabermetrics can serve some purpose but to let it take over the game the way it has and every player golf swinging at pitches can be embarrassing. I emphasize to examine Juan Soto who may be one of the best things that has come along in some time. If clubs do not use the minor leagues to teach how to hit with two strikes it has to make one wonder what re they doling down there. Just passing time. Soto. Study him and learn. The obsession over the data is a red blot as is the mental balancing act of this magic number of 100 pitches. But what does it matter? Everybody is making money, right? Just saw an interview with Frank Thomas and Mo Vaughn and the discussion came up on the lack of black ball players coming up. Vaughn said and I concur that the head injuries from football will push more players into the diamond and off the gridiron. Tim Anderson is the only one player of color and an American who is on the club. Noteworthy is Tim relishes the responsibility and is great with kids in the community. What Tim and his wife are doing is exceptional. Very happy Tim has a deep connection with Jackie Robinson and his contribution to the game. The very good thing about the international flare for baseball is the number of really good players is really increasing the quality of the game. Starts with Sabremetrics and ends with a race discussion. This bizarre tangent would make Caulfield proud. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: What in the fuck are you talking about? That teams are being too conservative. The Cubs took being aggressive to the extreme. It's even infiltrating the Yankees mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 27 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: They're the perfect example actually. They held on to all of their prospects instead of trying to win. I'm not saying to do what the Cubs did, but a middleground approach would have won them a WS. They were a player or two short for 4 seasons in a row. They prioritized long-term winning over short-term winning. You can argue whether that is the right decision, but no idea how you are blaming Sabremetrics for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Just now, Chicago White Sox said: They prioritized long-term winning over short-term winning. You can argue whether that is the right decision, but no idea how you are blaming Sabremetrics for that. The Braves proved that it is very difficult to win that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said: That teams are being too conservative. The Cubs took being aggressive to the extreme. It's even infiltrating the Yankees mindset. What do Sabremetrics have to do with conservatism though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: $/WAR wins games but not championships. We now have 20 years of data that proves that. Chalking it up to a crapshoot doesn't make sense because in 20 years one of these teams would have won if it actually was a crapshoot. Honestly man, every time you make one of these proclamations without doing any sort of rudimentary research you just spin yourself deeper and deeper. Everything you have said is just wrong and you know it. The dodgers have made the World Series multiple times in the past five years, they are one of the if not the most winning team in the national league over the last decade. At no point can you say that their moves have been detrimental to the success of the team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said: What do Sabremetrics have to do with conservatism though? Ideas like surplus value, $/WAR etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Honestly man, every time you make one of these proclamations without doing any sort of rudimentary research you just spin yourself deeper and deeper. Everything you have said is just wrong and you know it. The dodgers have made the World Series multiple times in the past five years, they are one of the if not the most winning team in the national league over the last decade. At no point can you say that their moves have been detrimental to the success of the team I have done research. The Royals and Cubs, and Red Sox sold out for rings. They have one. The Dodgers didn't, and they don't. Players come and go. Championship banners fly forever. Edited January 11, 2020 by Jack Parkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said: Ideas like surplus value, $/WAR etc. Connect it to the team being conservative. Don't name a sabermetric value and waive your hand dismissively at it. A team prioritizing a better deal for a better player doesn't make sabermetrics bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Just now, Jack Parkman said: I have done research. The Royals and Cubs, and Red Sox sold out for rings. They have one. The Dodgers didn't, and they don't. The cubs and Red Sox both run heavy sabermetric based front offices. The royals lost every player that won for them because they wouldn't pay them and none of that has to do with sabermetrics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Just now, Kyyle23 said: Connect it to the team being conservative. Don't name a sabermetric value and waive your hand dismissively at it. A team prioritizing a better deal for a better player doesn't make sabermetrics bad I don't think they are bad if used properly. Using them as an excuse for not getting the job done is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: I don't think they are bad if used properly. Using them as an excuse for not getting the job done is. Nobody is pointing to them as the reason for the job not getting done but you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Kyyle23 said: The cubs and Red Sox both run heavy sabermetric based front offices. The royals lost every player that won for them because they wouldn't pay them and none of that has to do with sabermetrics Maybe In this case I'm equating sabermetrics with conservatism in team building. I'm railing against conservatism not necessarily sabermetrics, mostly using sabermetrics as an excuse to be overly conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Ideas like surplus value, $/WAR etc. What? Those are simply valuation techniques. I’m 100% missing how those have anything to do with front offices being conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: What? Those are simply valuation techniques. I’m 100% missing how those have anything to do with front offices being conservative. I'm still trying to figure out why Friedman holding on to players like Seager, Bellinger, Buehler is a bad thing when his teams are still winning 92+ games every year and knocking on the door of a championship 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.