AGon discussion, et. al.

[Princess Dye]

We'd all agree Linebrink is not great.

 

But managers never do a nonstop shuffling of the deck chairs in their pen. That's something the fans always want but never gets put into practice. More often than not they just ride it out with the losers theyre stuck with.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Princess Dye

[NorthSideSox72]

But managers never do a nonstop shuffling of the deck chairs in their pen. That's something the fans always want but never gets put into practice. More often than not they just ride it out with the losers theyre stuck with.

Actually, that's what a lot of managers do, a lot of the time. Bullpens rarely stay the exact same 6 or 7 guys and 6 or 7 roles all season.

 

[Melissa1334]

We'd all agree Linebrink is not great.

 

But managers never do a nonstop shuffling of the deck chairs in their pen. That's something the fans always want but never gets put into practice. More often than not they just ride it out with the losers theyre stuck with.

piniella used gregg for almost the whole yr as the closer,well atleast way too much lol

[ptatc]

Believe me, I am the first one to suggest that people who do this sort of thing for a living should have their opinions respected to the utmost degree. That does not mean, however, that they should not be questioned, nor that their decisions are infallible, nor that there is not a different way to do things.

 

I agree they should be questioned. After all we all know that scouting is an inexact profession. My point was that I'm sure the that nobody was brough up to take the place of a struggling player, in this case Linebrink, is that the organization didn't think anyone was ready.

 

One thing I think most of us agree on is that KW and Ozzie want to win and if they thought someone else could do a better job they would have sent the lowest guy in the bullpen down and brought up the better player. Linebrink wouldn't have been sent down just had a lesser role.

[WCSox]

I realize that Rongey gets a ton of "somebody, anybody!" phone calls from delusional fans during the post-game show, but I have to agree with shack that there are pitchers in the Sox farm system that could've done better than the 2.04 WHIP than Linebrink put up in August and September.

 

The problem with Linebrink, that KHP pointed out here several weeks ago, is that he has had something like 5 straight seasons of horrible second halves. It's as puzzling as it is amazing, as it certainly didn't appear to be related to an injury or dead arm this year. I completely understand how Ozzie would be hesitant to demote a guy a veteran with a large salary and solid track record in early September after he put up a really solid April-June and a decent July. But as soon as it becomes apparent that 2010 will be Linebrink's sixth straight year of bad second-half pitching, Ozzie needs to put somebody else in his role. That doesn't mean DFAing Linebrink, but he can't be used regularly if he's pitching like that. If I'm Kenny, I'm thinking about this right now and will be working with my minor league coaches in the spring to identify potential candidates for the setup role in Chicago later in the summer.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I realize that Rongey gets a ton of "somebody, anybody!" phone calls from delusional fans during the post-game show, but I have to agree with shack that there are pitchers in the Sox farm system that could've done better than the 2.04 WHIP than Linebrink put up in August and September.

 

The problem with Linebrink, that KHP pointed out here several weeks ago, is that he has had something like 5 straight seasons of horrible second halves. It's as puzzling as it is amazing, as it certainly didn't appear to be related to an injury or dead arm this year. I completely understand how Ozzie would be hesitant to demote a guy a veteran with a large salary and solid track record in early September after he put up a really solid April-June and a decent July. But as soon as it becomes apparent that 2010 will be Linebrink's sixth straight year of bad second-half pitching, Ozzie needs to put somebody else in his role. That doesn't mean DFAing Linebrink, but he can't be used regularly if he's pitching like that. If I'm Kenny, I'm thinking about this right now and will be working with my minor league coaches in the spring to identify potential candidates for the setup role in Chicago later in the summer.

I'd bet that we will see two relievers in the 2010 pen from our system anyway - Hudson (likely to the pen for the short term), and Nunez. They will have the first half to show their stuff, and if Linebrink or one of the other close/late relievers begins to falter, they will probably flip roles. This also allows other relievers in the system who aren't quite seen as ready yet (Santeliz is a possibility) to show what they can do in AAA, and then we'd know better who is ready.

 

 

[WCSox]

I'd bet that we will see two relievers in the 2010 pen from our system anyway - Hudson (likely to the pen for the short term), and Nunez. They will have the first half to show their stuff, and if Linebrink or one of the other close/late relievers begins to falter, they will probably flip roles. This also allows other relievers in the system who aren't quite seen as ready yet (Santeliz is a possibility) to show what they can do in AAA, and then we'd know better who is ready.

 

I would think/hope that Hudson would start the season out in AAA (to condition his arm for the 2011 rotation). But he's exactly the type of player who could be brought up to replace Linebrink, if needed.

 

[Chisoxfn]

Oh, so now the guys in charge are infallible?

 

Since the White Sox organization did not do something, all actions they avoided taking were defacto incorrect?

 

Bobby Jenks was released by the Angels in December of 04'. The White Sox claimed him, while many other teams did not. I understand Jenks may have needed a change of scenery, but were all the other teams who did not claim Jenks correct? Because by that logic, if Jenks would have been able to contribute to their bullpens, they would have claimed him, right?

 

I understand that we have coaches and scouts in the minor leagues who tell the parent club who they believe to be ready and who they don't believe to be ready. I'm not suggesting someone should have been brought up to replace a marginal performer though. I'm suggesting someone should have been tried to replace someone who was simply not performing at an acceptable level.

 

Can someone please point out what the harm would have been? What did we have to lose? Someone posting a 12 ERA instead of an 8 ERA in the second half?

 

I'm sorry, but you guys are going to have an awfully difficult time convincing me that there simply were no other options for replacing a guy as bad as Linebrink was.

I understanding where you are coming from shack, but the big thing you are missing is the upside of some of the names you mentioned vs the upside of Linebrink figuring it out.

 

My theory is that Linebrink's biggest problem last season, especially in the 2nd half, was his command. Whether his command struggled because of injury, I don't know, but stuff wise, he had his fastball and when he threw his splitter it was decent enough. The problem was he really went away from his secondary stuff because he couldn't throw it close to the plate and lived and died by a fastball that consistently was getting too much of the plate.

 

I'm sure the Sox perspective (given that they didn't send him down or put him on the DL) was that Linebrink's upside was worth more than throwing 3 or 4 or 5 guys into the major league level and seeing if any one of them could stick.

 

You stick with Linebrink and he gets his confidence back and bam, you have a guy that a year ago was an elite set-up man before his arm injury (he was very very good for the Sox in 2008 prior to the injury and we all are well aware of the elite years he had in San Diego for a while).

 

I just didn't see where Linebrink's pure stuff had went away (not that he was very Jenks nasty, but he's got a nice fastball/splitter combo) so I think the Sox felt there was a decent chance that he could turn it around in the future (hopefully that means this year).

 

I also widely known to not be a fan of Nunez and I don't buy into Link. Both individuals command make Linebrink look like Maddux. And the Sox did try Nunez a bit, but he just didn't suceed in his limited time.

 

It doesn't mean he won't succeed in the future because I've talked to a few Sox scouts who were high on him. I disagreed with those scouts but I have a much smaller sample size (of my eyes) than they do. I do know he's got the plus fastball velocity and can ocassionally through a good slider, but he's got to repeat stuff and if he can figure that out, the Sox will have him up in the pen in no time.

 

Rushing an Ely/Shirek/etc wouldn't have been good for there development, imo, so I don't think they were factors and Hudson was moving so quickly that I don't know if anyone would have figured he'd have been much of an option in July, early August, but who knows.

[Chisoxfn]

I agree they should be questioned. After all we all know that scouting is an inexact profession. My point was that I'm sure the that nobody was brough up to take the place of a struggling player, in this case Linebrink, is that the organization didn't think anyone was ready.

 

One thing I think most of us agree on is that KW and Ozzie want to win and if they thought someone else could do a better job they would have sent the lowest guy in the bullpen down and brought up the better player. Linebrink wouldn't have been sent down just had a lesser role.

The Sox were willing to use Jenks as a closer in the midst of a post-season run. A rookie who started the year in the minors.

 

[fathom]

My biggest issue with the use of Linebrink last year was Ozzie kept putting him into close games against the Tigers. I believe he had three or four losses against them, and that's not surprising when you have someone throwing 95 percent fastballs to a great fastball hitting team. I strongly believe that we need to add a non-fastball dominant pitcher to our bullpen (preferably a sinker baller) to go with Linebrink and Thornton.

[Ranger]

I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty.

How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up?

 

I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that.

 

I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal.

 

Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us.

 

I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get.

 

First, let me say that Ozzie didn't want people to expect Beckham to save the season. It wasn't that he didn't want him here. You know how fans are, man. "Here comes the Sox top pick, everthing's gonna be great from here on out!" Ozzie was trying to stop that before it started.

 

Second, I don't know that someone else couldn't have pitched better. That's why it's called "uncertainty" and why I used the word "might." Somebody might have come up here and pitched better, but it is also possible he could have come up here and pitched worse. (Before anyone is tempted to be hyperbolic, yes, it COULD have been worse.) Where you are wrong is in your assumption of "certain failure." Linebrink was uncertain but there was also potential reward. They know what he's capable of and they know that he had done it fairly recently. It's not like he had spend the last 4 seasons jumping from team to team, signing deals for the minimum, and hoping for just one more good year. Hell, he hadn't even done that for even 2 years.

 

Like Chisoxfn said, teams will almost always take the uncertainty of the veteran who has had recent success over the uncertainty of the minor leaguer with zero experience. Unless, of course, they are trying to dump payroll. Mike MacDougal is not, and never will be in the same level with Linebrink. The difference is that they were waiting and waiting on MacDougal to reach that potential, which he never did. If anything, the MacDougal example fortifies what I'm saying about patience because they waited longer on him than they ever would on some other unproven comodity, but that was because his stuff was brilliant, he could just never learn control. Linebrink is completely different because he's been one of the better relievers in baseball over the last several years --prior to last year-- and there is the potential reward of that coming back is too good to dismiss. No teammates of MacDougal were ever furious he was let go.

 

You essentially said in another post that you understand scouts and evaluators within the organization know when someone is ready to be here. Is it difficult to realize that there may not have been anyone better that was ready?

 

You may, but usually people who do this for a living trust their scouts and organization to tell them who is ready. Remember ready isn't just numbers. It has to do with confidence and mental toughness. Maybe some players numbers were ready but the organization didn't think the maturity or confidence was there.

 

Right or wrong, if they don't feel the players is ready, they won't go with uncertainty.

 

Correct.

 

Oh, so now the guys in charge are infallible?

 

Since the White Sox organization did not do something, all actions they avoided taking were defacto incorrect?

 

Bobby Jenks was released by the Angels in December of 04'. The White Sox claimed him, while many other teams did not. I understand Jenks may have needed a change of scenery, but were all the other teams who did not claim Jenks correct? Because by that logic, if Jenks would have been able to contribute to their bullpens, they would have claimed him, right?

 

I understand that we have coaches and scouts in the minor leagues who tell the parent club who they believe to be ready and who they don't believe to be ready. I'm not suggesting someone should have been brought up to replace a marginal performer though. I'm suggesting someone should have been tried to replace someone who was simply not performing at an acceptable level.

 

Can someone please point out what the harm would have been? What did we have to lose? Someone posting a 12 ERA instead of an 8 ERA in the second half?

 

I'm sorry, but you guys are going to have an awfully difficult time convincing me that there simply were no other options for replacing a guy as bad as Linebrink was.

 

 

Claiming a player off waivers is not the same as benching a successful veteran for a completely unproven minor-leaguer in the middle of the season. And the act of claiming Jenks does not prove anything about anything. It's a team taking an absolute no-risk chance on a player with a questionable history. It doesn't mena the Sox are smarter than everyone else or that everyone else is stupid for passing on him.

 

Now, there is potential harm in doing what you suggest. One, is that you instantly lose the potential reward of Linebrink again becoming Linebrink, or something like him. You see, fans are sometimes horribly impatient (see Buehrle 2006 and Konerko 2008). And I think it's good that teams are not impatient. If teams operated the way fans would operate with their guts, things would be in terrible disaray. It was very possible that Scott Linerbink would've turned things around. This is how teams operate with veteran players like him. They wait for that reward as long as they can.

 

The other harm in what you want is to call up a kid before he's ready, thus causing a mental setback. Plus, there is nothing good about a revolving bullpen door (see 2007).

 

 

We'd all agree Linebrink is not great.

 

But managers never do a nonstop shuffling of the deck chairs in their pen. That's something the fans always want but never gets put into practice. More often than not they just ride it out with the losers theyre stuck with.

 

Also true, which leads to:

 

Actually, that's what a lot of managers do, a lot of the time. Bullpens rarely stay the exact same 6 or 7 guys and 6 or 7 roles all season.

 

Managers generally shuffle the bullpen around for one of two reasons: 1) Injuries, and 2) Because most bullpens are incomplete" to start the season anyway. Which is to say that a lot of teams go into April with at least one reliever with no experience, little potential etc. Those teams are not shy about replacing guys like that. They're alot more willing to send down a struggling reliever that was in AA the previous year, than they are to bench a veteran like Linebrink.

[iamshack]

You're not addressing any of the points I am making. Instead, you are continuing to try and ram your own down my throat.

 

You're operating under many assumptions here, which I am questioning the validity of. Until you are willing to even consider that your assumptions may be wrong, the debate will go nowhere.

 

It's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

[DGSOXFan14]

You're not addressing any of the points I am making. Instead, you are continuing to try and ram your own down my throat.

 

You're operating under many assumptions here, which I am questioning the validity of. Until you are willing to even consider that your assumptions may be wrong, the debate will go nowhere.

 

It's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

[Ranger]

You're not addressing any of the points I am making. Instead, you are continuing to try and ram your own down my throat.

 

You're operating under many assumptions here, which I am questioning the validity of. Until you are willing to even consider that your assumptions may be wrong, the debate will go nowhere.

 

It's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

What points am I not addressing? I addressed ever single player comparison (like Matthews and MacDougal). And I gave you reasons, not assumptions, as to why they were handled the way they were handled. I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you some insight as to why teams do what they do and why they operate the way they do. I think you can concede that I have a pretty good understanding of that. It's why I gave you a more fitting example in Brad Lidge. There is a reason he kept getting chances and kept getting the ball late in games despite his struggles. The Lidge situation is more comparable to Linebrink than anything else you've presented.

 

I respect your passion for the game, but your passion and frustration toward Linebrink has guided you into the "I'm tired of looking at this guy, let's get someone else in there" mindset. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how fans feel and it comes out of frustration. But, there is a reason organizations don't/can't always do it the way fans want it to be done. I'm just trying to show you that. Different players (all things considered: ability, past performance, contract) have to be treated in different ways.

[iamshack]

What points am I not addressing? I addressed ever single player comparison (like Matthews and MacDougal). And I gave you reasons, not assumptions, as to why they were handled the way they were handled. I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you some insight as to why teams do what they do and why they operate the way they do. I think you can concede that I have a pretty good understanding of that. It's why I gave you a more fitting example in Brad Lidge. There is a reason he kept getting chances and kept getting the ball late in games despite his struggles. The Lidge situation is more comparable to Linebrink than anything else you've presented.

 

I respect your passion for the game, but your passion and frustration toward Linebrink has guided you into the "I'm tired of looking at this guy, let's get someone else in there" mindset. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how fans feel and it comes out of frustration. But, there is a reason organizations don't/can't always do it the way fans want it to be done. I'm just trying to show you that. Different players (all things considered: ability, past performance, contract) have to be treated in different ways.

 

Wow. Thanks, for the response, Mr. Rongey.

[Ranger]

Wow. Thanks, for the response, Mr. Rongey.

 

 

Wow what?

[shipps]

Wow what?

 

Its all I got.

 

http://i940.photobucket.com/albums/ad248/S.../Funny/Wow2.jpg

 

Semi-NSFW

[iamshack]

Wow what?

 

I completely accept your explanation of why Ozzie handled Linebrink the way that he did. I've conceded within this debate that I even agreed with the way he handled it up to a point.

 

My issue with your argument is your assumption that 1) the way Ozzie handled the situation was the correct way; 2) that the way Ozzie handled it is the only possible way in which to yield positive results; 3) that the historical common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 4) that the current common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 5) that even if the historical common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 6) that even if the present common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 7) that fans, or mere spectators, are incapable of thoughts or ideas that are better than those employed by the industry of baseball, simply by the fact that those fans are not employed by the industry of baseball; 8) that the game, industry, and business of professional baseball are not rapidly evolving; 9) that intelligent people, mere "fans" by your definition, and not previously having participated in the game of baseball or the industry and business of professional baseball have not recently produced major statistical contributions and/or studies about the way in which the game of baseball has been played or is played, and/or the manner in which the business of baseball has been or is currently operated that are now being utilized by teams within Major League Baseball; 10) that some of those same intelligent people have not recently been hired by Major League Baseball teams to help in the decision-making process regarding strategy in how the game is played, or how the economics of the industry might be approached; 11) that some of those same intelligent people are not now in General Manger, Assistant Manager, or consultant positions within teams of Major League Baseball; 12) that the teams those individuals are employed by have not attempted a manner of operating that was/is considered against the common practice of the industry; 13) that those teams that have attempted a manner of operating that was/is against the common practice of the industry have not realized significant measures of success; 14) that that very success has not been recognized or has not begun to be recognized by other teams within Major League Baseball; 15) that success using operating practices outside the common practice of the industry does not validate those operating practices; 16) that success is not the primary objective.

 

There are your assumptions I have a problem with.

[knightni]

Wow.

[Kyyle23]

Wow.

 

lol

[Jordan4life_2007]

I completely accept your explanation of why Ozzie handled Linebrink the way that he did. I've conceded within this debate that I even agreed with the way he handled it up to a point.

 

My issue with your argument is your assumption that 1) the way Ozzie handled the situation was the correct way; 2) that the way Ozzie handled it is the only possible way in which to yield positive results; 3) that the historical common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 4) that the current common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 5) that even if the historical common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 6) that even if the present common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 7) that fans, or mere spectators, are incapable of thoughts or ideas that are better than those employed by the industry of baseball, simply by the fact that those fans are not employed by the industry of baseball; 8) that the game, industry, and business of professional baseball are not rapidly evolving; 9) that intelligent people, mere "fans" by your definition, and not previously having participated in the game of baseball or the industry and business of professional baseball have not recently produced major statistical contributions and/or studies about the way in which the game of baseball has been played or is played, and/or the manner in which the business of baseball has been or is currently operated that are now being utilized by teams within Major League Baseball; 10) that some of those same intelligent people have not recently been hired by Major League Baseball teams to help in the decision-making process regarding strategy in how the game is played, or how the economics of the industry might be approached; 11) that some of those same intelligent people are not now in General Manger, Assistant Manager, or consultant positions within teams of Major League Baseball; 12) that the teams those individuals are employed by have not attempted a manner of operating that was/is considered against the common practice of the industry; 13) that those teams that have attempted a manner of operating that was/is against the common practice of the industry have not realized significant measures of success; 14) that that very success has not been recognized or has not begun to be recognized by other teams within Major League Baseball; 15) that success using operating practices outside the common practice of the industry does not validate those operating practices; 16) that success is not the primary objective.

 

There are your assumptions I have a problem with.

 

Good god, shack. Is that the lawyer in you talkin'? I literally got a headache readin' this post. I don't like it when I'm forced to think. Stop it!

[Ranger]

I completely accept your explanation of why Ozzie handled Linebrink the way that he did. I've conceded within this debate that I even agreed with the way he handled it up to a point.

 

My issue with your argument is your assumption that 1) the way Ozzie handled the situation was the correct way; 2) that the way Ozzie handled it is the only possible way in which to yield positive results; 3) that the historical common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 4) that the current common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 5) that even if the historical common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 6) that even if the present common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 7) that fans, or mere spectators, are incapable of thoughts or ideas that are better than those employed by the industry of baseball, simply by the fact that those fans are not employed by the industry of baseball; 8) that the game, industry, and business of professional baseball are not rapidly evolving; 9) that intelligent people, mere "fans" by your definition, and not previously having participated in the game of baseball or the industry and business of professional baseball have not recently produced major statistical contributions and/or studies about the way in which the game of baseball has been played or is played, and/or the manner in which the business of baseball has been or is currently operated that are now being utilized by teams within Major League Baseball; 10) that some of those same intelligent people have not recently been hired by Major League Baseball teams to help in the decision-making process regarding strategy in how the game is played, or how the economics of the industry might be approached; 11) that some of those same intelligent people are not now in General Manger, Assistant Manager, or consultant positions within teams of Major League Baseball; 12) that the teams those individuals are employed by have not attempted a manner of operating that was/is considered against the common practice of the industry; 13) that those teams that have attempted a manner of operating that was/is against the common practice of the industry have not realized significant measures of success; 14) that that very success has not been recognized or has not begun to be recognized by other teams within Major League Baseball; 15) that success using operating practices outside the common practice of the industry does not validate those operating practices; 16) that success is not the primary objective.

 

There are your assumptions I have a problem with.

 

Speaking of "wow."

 

I did not say that fans can't have an opinion. But, I don't believe that you and I or anyone else that watches the game have thought of something that people who do this for a living have not already considered. We aren't going to revolutionize baseball and how personnel is handled.

I would say that, yes, if a certain way of handling players is how just about every franchise in the game does it, then it likely that it is the best way. And I don't believe that the Sox failed to bench Linebrink and call up a minor leaguer simply because they didn't think of it. They OBVIOUSLY thought of it, but realized there were too many reasons they could/should NOT do that.

 

I'm guessing that you're referring to the likes of Bill James in your assertion the MLB has hired "intelligent people" to help re-think how things are done. But what you're talking about is statistical analysis of players with track records. A different way to crunch numbers. These are really the only sort of "ordinary people" that have found their way into MLB that have any effect on personnel decisions. A statistician may find a new formula that better helps indicate a player's worth, but no amount of statistics is going to be able to predict when a minor league pitcher is ready for the show, ready to handle the pressure and the change of being promoted, and is going to give you better than what you already have on the roster. This sort of knowledge comes from being able to interact with that minor leaguer on a daily basis.

 

At any rate, the intention of the newer statistics is to reduce uncertainty. Only logic would tell you that there is less uncertainty with a healthy, veteran pitcher that has real, recent success at the major league level (despite current struggles) than there is with a completely unproven minor-leaguer that may or may not be ready to pitch at the major league level. You're operating under the assumption that it could not hurt, when yes, it most definitely could.

 

It's almost beside the point anyway, since teams operate this way because patience works and because they have to. Track record wins out for a reason, Shack.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Ranger

[knightni]

How would you classify Theo Epstein and Josh Byrnes then Ranger?

 

Epstein went to college, worked for the school paper, got a PR job on an MLB club and worked his way up.

 

Byrnes went to school, got an MLB internship and worked his way up.

 

Neither of these guys are "baseball men", nor are they former players.

 

Would you classify them as fans who got a break?

 

[Melissa1334]

Speaking of "wow."

 

I did not say that fans can't have an opinion. But, I don't believe that you and I or anyone else that watches the game have thought of something that people who do this for a living have not already considered. We aren't going to revolutionize baseball and how personnel is handled.

I would say that, yes, if a certain way of handling players is how just about every franchise in the game does it, then it likely that it is the best way. And I don't believe that the Sox failed to bench Linebrink and call up a minor leaguer simply because they didn't think of it. They OBVIOUSLY thought of it, but realized there were too many reasons they could/should NOT do that.

 

I'm guessing that you're referring to the likes of Bill James in your assertion the MLB has hired "intelligent people" to help re-think how things are done. But what you're talking about is statistical analysis of players with track records. A different way to crunch numbers. These are really the only sort of "ordinary people" that have found their way into MLB that have any affect on personnel decisions. A statistician may find a new formula that better helps indicate a player's worth, but no amount of statistics is going to be able to predict when a minor league pitcher is ready for the show, ready to handle the pressure and the change of being promoted, and is going to give you better than what you already have on the roster. This sort of knowledge comes from being able to interact with that minor leaguer on a daily basis.

 

At any rate, the intention of the newer statistics is to reduce uncertainty. Only logic would tell you that there is less uncertainty with a healthy, veteran pitcher that has real, recent success at the major league level (despite current struggles) than there is with a completely unproven minor-leaguer that may or may not be ready to pitch at the major league level. You're operating under the assumption that it could not hurt, when yes, it most definitely could.

 

It's almost beside the point anyway, since teams operate this way because patience works and because they have to. Track record wins out for a reason, Shack.

ur right cris time to end this madness lol

[Ranger]

Let me add that an "outsider" is not going to change the sport by saying, "here's a new idea: if you want to have a better chance of winning, you should try replacing your well-paid, contractually-bound, historically-productive, yet currently-struggling players with minor league players because it can't hurt." Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is essentially your idea, Shack.

 

A team will never buy into that approach until it is proven that going with the unproven minor leaguer works better than going with a veteran who has a recent, good resume or until the pay structure in baseball changes.