Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:37 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2172
JollyRoger wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
Yeah its the DK argument that "my daughter can make great picks in the top 5 overall" which is nonsense. Kind of like Tampa, the best front office in the game, botching a #1 overall pick. Or of course DL turning a #1 overall and #4 overall into nothing.

If you are a MLB GM you better be able to select talent when drafting in the top 5. There are always going to be disappointments here and there, but in general they are no brainer picks. The only nonsense is comparing any GM to Littlefield...


Oh come on, Kershaw and Lincecum were both selected after Lincoln. Cameron Maybin was selected before Cutch. Trout was the 25th overall pick for Christ sake. It's an inexact science and the success rate of the top 5 picks (with success being defined as players making the majors) is somewhere around 60%.

My point is that when you pick high, the player pool is filled with no brainers. I stated that you always have disappointments and some guys become busts. You also always have guys that slip through the cracks. I am well aware of the draft being an inexact science. My exact words were that you better be able to SELECT talent when drafting in the top 5(unless your last name is Littlefield). Whether Cole, Taillon, and Alvarez become superstars, average major leaguers, or busts is yet to be seen. But they were no brainers as far as selections. And the success rate for top 5 picks is far higher than that of guys selected in the middle of the first round, or at the end, etc.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2172
No. 9 wrote:
I often read "if we only had a GM like the Rays' Andrew Friedman . .. "

Well, here are the last 5 drafts by the Rays (Friedman was GM for all 5 drafts):

2010 draft: http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft ... ranch_year. 50 picks. Not a single pick has seen major league playing time.

2009 draft: http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft ... ranch_year. 50 picks. Not a single draft pick has seen major league playing time.

2008 draft (which included the #1 pick overall): http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft ... ranch_year. 50 picks. Not a single draft pick has seen major league playing time.

2007 draft (which netted David Price): http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft ... ranch_year. 50 picks/4 with major league playing time.

2006 draft (which netted Evan Longoria): http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft ... ranch_year. 50 picks/5 with major league playing time.

By my count, the Rays have drafted 250 players between 2006 and 2010 and 9 of them have seen major league playing time. And all 9 of those picks were drafted in 2006 and 2007. They've obtained Longoria and Price in that time frame. Friedman is 0 for his last 150 from 2008-2010, including having the first overall pick in 2008.

In BA's latest Top 100 prospects, there are 5 Rays listed. Here they are:
1. #4 Wil Myers (age 22); Not drafted by Rays. Drafted by Royals in 3rd Round of 2009.
2. #36 Chris Archer (age 24); Not drafted by Rays. Drafted by Indians in 3rd Round of 2006.
3. #62 Taylor Guerreri (age 20); Drafted by Rays in Round 1 of 2011
4. #90 Hak Ju Lee (age 22); Not drafted by Rays; signed by Cubs as international free agent
5. #92 Jake Odorizzi (age 23); Not drafted by Rays; drafted by Brewers as supplemental first round pick in 2008.

If only the Pirates had a GM like Andrew Friedman . . .

3 top 5 picks got him 2 superstars and a bust. I'd take that. But you are right...I'd hate to have a GM that finds a way to put his team in contention year after year after year...It's much better to be told to look to the future year after year after year... :roll:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
PP -
If NH gets no credit for Alvarez, Cole and Taillon because those are "no brainers" picks, then Friedman shouldn't get credit for Price and Longoria because they were "no brainers" as well.

The point is relatively simple, if you want to sound credbile when criticizing NH's draft results, perhaps it should start with pointing out another GM's results which are markedly better.

Just my $.02.

-No. 9

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5096
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
PP -
If NH gets no credit for Alvarez, Cole and Taillon because those are "no brainers" picks, then Friedman shouldn't get credit for Price and Longoria because they were "no brainers" as well.

The point is relatively simple, if you want to sound credbile when criticizing NH's draft results, perhaps it should start with pointing out another GM's results which are markedly better.

Just my $.02.

-No. 9


Drafts don't occur in a vacuum. Good GMs use the draft as one method of building a winning team. I criticize NH's ability to do THAT. Friedman has used all of the tools in his belt to make TB into a consistently good team. He was named GM in 2005 and led the Rays to the playoffs (winning the AL pennant) in 2008.

Until NH gets similar results, I believe all aspects of his GM performance may be rightly criticized.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
I thought that my posts were pretty clearly directed towards the singular issue of draft competence and whether NH's performance is as bad as some would make it to be (you know . . . like pointing to the 2009 draft class as evidence of complete incompetance).

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5096
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
I thought that my posts were pretty clearly directed towards the singular issue of draft competence and whether NH's performance is as bad as some would make it to be (you know . . . like pointing to the 2009 draft class as evidence of complete incompetance).


And I think my overall view is pretty clear that viewing any specific tool in a GM's arsenal without looking at how he uses his other tools results in an inaccurate picture of his effectiveness.

I brought up the 2009 draft class as an example of a failure. It's just an example.

If I wanted to paint the full picture, I would have to take into account his trades, free agent acquisitions, and other attempts to improve the PBC, and then ask everyone how long NH should get to produce a winning team. Oh wait, I did that already:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4652

Willton agreed that if the Pirates don't field a winning team in 2013, NH deserves to be fired. Do you agree?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 920
Location: Rochester, New York
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton agreed that if the Pirates don't field a winning team in 2013, NH deserves to be fired. Do you agree?


I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll respond anyway.

I don't think it's as simple as "NH needs to be fired if he doesn't win 82 games". It's a function of his improvement over time, the top to bottom success of the organization, whether someone available is more capable as a GM, and some other factors (trade evaluation, etc...).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton agreed that if the Pirates don't field a winning team in 2013, NH deserves to be fired. Do you agree?


I'm assuming that the reference to "winning" refers to reaching 82 wins.

Based upon that assumption . . . no, I would not agree with that statement. I think that job performance is a far more complicated analysis than whether or not the Pirates win 80, 81 or 82 games. They could win 85 games and I could envision advocating for his termination (he sells off the farm for crap in an all out effort to win division and they fail). They could win 77 games and I could advocate for his retention (injuires to key personnel but off-season acquisitions perform well).

I'm also not of the belief that, when a particular draft pick doesn't pan out, it is necessarily evidence of a "failure." If the Pirates decided to draft me last year with the #1 pick because my name sounded cool and I grew up near Field of Dreams, that would be a "failure." Drafting someone like Chad Hermansen based upon solid scouting, established modeling and many hours of pouring over candidates and making a knowledgeable decision at the time does not, in my opinion, constitute a "failure." Predicting future greatness out of 18-22 year olds is probably more difficult than getting solid wood on a Mariano Rivera slider.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2172
NH has not done a good job in the draft. We all agree that the draft is important for a team like the Pirates. My biggest point was he made obvious selections with Alvarez, Cole, and Taillon. Top picks have a better chance of becoming really good than lower picks. Other than those 3 names the list is more like suspects than prospects. And that is even with the spending over slot. The Pirates need to hit on more of those picks than some other teams. They haven't during NH's tenure. Thus I feel it is fair to say he hasn't been as productive in the draft as he needs to be. He is fortunate that his Latin American scouts have hauled in the guys they have. Comparing him to the GM of a small market team who is always in contention is ridiculous.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5096
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
I'm also not of the belief that, when a particular draft pick doesn't pan out, it is necessarily evidence of a "failure." If the Pirates decided to draft me last year with the #1 pick because my name sounded cool and I grew up near Field of Dreams, that would be a "failure." Drafting someone like Chad Hermansen based upon solid scouting, established modeling and many hours of pouring over candidates and making a knowledgeable decision at the time does not, in my opinion, constitute a "failure." Predicting future greatness out of 18-22 year olds is probably more difficult than getting solid wood on a Mariano Rivera slider.


If that's the case, how do you judge a GM? If a GM selects a slew of players in the draft based on "solid scouting" and makes other acquisitions based on "many hours of pouring over candidates and making a knowledgeable decision" but ends up presiding over a team that continues to lose and lose and lose, would that GM be a "failure" in your book?

Using only your described method of evaluation, you would advocate employing a GM that never leads his team to a winning season so long as you approve of his general methods.

Let me tell you a few of things I know about baseball. I don't know much, but I know these things:

1. They keep score.
2. There is a winner and loser of each game.
3. GMs are judged by how many games their teams win or lose.

Every single major-league GM in baseball uses a sophisticated method based on reams of data and hours of analysis to make decisions. And every GM competes against every other GM to craft a better baseball team.

So far, Neal Huntington has failed to build a winning baseball team. He's had five seasons. He's entering his sixth at the helm. He's done some good things; he's done some dumb things. But overall, he hasn't built a contender. That's what he was tasked to do. If he doesn't do it this year, I'm betting he gets tossed out on his ear. And he'll deserve it.

I would have tossed him out after last year's second straight historic collapse. But that's me.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Really? One guy with a 30 home run season and two number one type starters who will be in the majors by mid-2014 looks like a pretty damn good record to me, not to mention enough prospects to garner Wandy.


You just named three guys, two of which haven't thrown a pitch in the majors yet. Are you saying that means Neal Huntington has done a great job drafting these past 5 years? Really?

Here's the Pirates' full 2009 draft:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft ... ype=junreg

How's that draft class look to you?

It takes a minimum of 3-5 years to work your way up. A MINIMUM. The best case scenario for Huntington after five drafts would have two guys up.

Yeah, I know the 2009 draft was a bad one. It was a bad one for almost every team in the major leagues, except maybe the Cards, who I suspect do conventional scouting for the first few rounds, then turn to a powerful voodoo high priest for the rest of the draft. It's just ridiculous how much value they manage to get out of the later rounds.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
I thought that my posts were pretty clearly directed towards the singular issue of draft competence and whether NH's performance is as bad as some would make it to be (you know . . . like pointing to the 2009 draft class as evidence of complete incompetance).


And I think my overall view is pretty clear that viewing any specific tool in a GM's arsenal without looking at how he uses his other tools results in an inaccurate picture of his effectiveness.

I brought up the 2009 draft class as an example of a failure. It's just an example.

If I wanted to paint the full picture, I would have to take into account his trades, free agent acquisitions, and other attempts to improve the PBC, and then ask everyone how long NH should get to produce a winning team. Oh wait, I did that already:

http://www.pittsburghsports.net/viewtop ... f=1&t=4652

Willton agreed that if the Pirates don't field a winning team in 2013, NH deserves to be fired. Do you agree?

I'm very curious as to why you decided to call my comment out in this regard. Am I some sort of authority or spokesman for a particular group of people?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5096
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
I'm very curious as to why you decided to call my comment out in this regard. Am I some sort of authority or spokesman for a particular group of people?


Just a representative example. We spent quite a bit of time going back and forth about Huntington in that thread, and I respect your opinion.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
I'm also not of the belief that, when a particular draft pick doesn't pan out, it is necessarily evidence of a "failure." If the Pirates decided to draft me last year with the #1 pick because my name sounded cool and I grew up near Field of Dreams, that would be a "failure." Drafting someone like Chad Hermansen based upon solid scouting, established modeling and many hours of pouring over candidates and making a knowledgeable decision at the time does not, in my opinion, constitute a "failure." Predicting future greatness out of 18-22 year olds is probably more difficult than getting solid wood on a Mariano Rivera slider.


If that's the case, how do you judge a GM? If a GM selects a slew of players in the draft based on "solid scouting" and makes other acquisitions based on "many hours of pouring over candidates and making a knowledgeable decision" but ends up presiding over a team that continues to lose and lose and lose, would that GM be a "failure" in your book?

Using only your described method of evaluation, you would advocate employing a GM that never leads his team to a winning season so long as you approve of his general methods.

Let me tell you a few of things I know about baseball. I don't know much, but I know these things:

1. They keep score.
2. There is a winner and loser of each game.
3. GMs are judged by how many games their teams win or lose.

Every single major-league GM in baseball uses a sophisticated method based on reams of data and hours of analysis to make decisions. And every GM competes against every other GM to craft a better baseball team.

So far, Neal Huntington has failed to build a winning baseball team. He's had five seasons. He's entering his sixth at the helm. He's done some good things; he's done some dumb things. But overall, he hasn't built a contender. That's what he was tasked to do. If he doesn't do it this year, I'm betting he gets tossed out on his ear. And he'll deserve it.

I would have tossed him out after last year's second straight historic collapse. But that's me.

Allow me to quote Paul DePodesta with respect to GM performance. This is from a blog post of his from 2008 with respect to draft picks, but I think is worth quoting with respect to GM performance:
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that all casino games have a winning process - the odds are stacked in the favor of the house. That doesn't mean they win every single hand or every roll of the dice, but they do win more often than not. Don't misunderstand me - the casino is absolutely concerned about outcomes. However, their approach to securing a good outcome is a laser like focus on process...right down to the ruthless pit boss.

We can view baseball through the same lens. Baseball is certainly an outcome-driven business, as we get charged with a W or an L 162 times a year (or 163 times every once in a while). Furthermore, we know we cannot possibly win every single time. In fact, winning just 60% of the time is a great season, a percentage that far exceeds house odds in most games. Like a casino, it appears as though baseball is all about outcomes, but just think about all of the processes that are in play during the course of just one game or even just one at-bat.

In having this discussion years ago with Michael Mauboussin, who wrote "More Than You Know" (a great book - a link to Michael's strategy papers appears on my blogroll), he showed me a very simple matrix by Russo and Schoemaker in "Winning Decisions" that explains this concept:

Image

We all want to be in the upper left box - deserved success resulting from a good process. This is generally where the casino lives. I'd like to think that this is where the Oakland A's and San Diego Padres have been during the regular seasons. The box in the upper right, however, is the tough reality we all face in industries that are dominated by uncertainty. A good process can lead to a bad outcome in the real world. In fact, it happens all the time. This is what happened to the casino when a player hit on 17 and won. I'd like to think this is what happened to the A's and Padres during the post-seasons. :-)

As tough as a good process/bad outcome combination is, nothing compares to the bottom left: bad process/good outcome. This is the wolf in sheep's clothing that allows for one-time success but almost always cripples any chance of sustained success - the player hitting on 17 and getting a four. Here's the rub: it's incredibly difficult to look in the mirror after a victory, any victory, and admit that you were lucky. If you fail to make that admission, however, the bad process will continue and the good outcome that occurred once will elude you in the future. Quite frankly, this is one of the things that makes Billy Beane as good as he is. He is quick to notice good luck embedded in a good outcome, and he refuses to pat himself on the back for it.

http://itmightbedangerous.blogspot.com/ ... ocess.html

The moral of this particular story is that a laser-like focus on merely the results of a rebuild fails to account for whether the good or bad results are a consequence of good or bad process. I'm not saying that the Pirates's lack of success over the past 5 years is a result of being mired in bad luck, and I'm certainly of the opinion that the strategy for the 2009 draft, while creative, was a bad one. But to merely point at results does not tell us whether Huntington is doing a good or bad job. You have to look at what processes and methods he has implemented to determine whether he deserves to stay or go.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
I'm very curious as to why you decided to call my comment out in this regard. Am I some sort of authority or spokesman for a particular group of people?


Just a representative example. We spent quite a bit of time going back and forth about Huntington in that thread, and I respect your opinion.

Oh. Well, um, ... thank you.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5096
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
The moral of this particular story is that a laser-like focus on merely the results of a rebuild fails to account for whether the good or bad results are a consequence of good or bad process. I'm not saying that the Pirates's lack of success over the past 5 years is a result of being mired in bad luck, and I'm certainly of the opinion that the strategy for the 2009 draft, while creative, was a bad one. But to merely point at results does not tell us whether Huntington is doing a good or bad job. You have to look at what processes and methods he has implemented to determine whether he deserves to stay or go.


Good read, Willton.

I'm a fan of looking at the full picture over a period of years. It seems unlikely to me that a team could experience protracted success while utilizing a bad process. In other words, you won't stay lucky for a period of years, especially in baseball. So teams that win consistently will be led by GMs that fall in the upper left box of the matrix. Similarly, teams that lost consistently won't be able to blame bad luck over a period of years. So they'll inevitably fall in the bottom right box of the matrix.

Personally, I believe Huntington doesn't fall in the bottom right box. But he's not in the upper left box, either. He's done some good things and some bad things. But heading into his sixth season, it's time to see results at the PBC level. Otherwise, I think Bob Nutting will need to find someone to lead the Pirates closer to the upper left box...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Now you've confused me. Earlier you wrote that NH has to preside over a "winner." Below you write that he's tasked to "build a contender." So . . . if the Pirates are not contending for the division title but sit at 81-80 going into the last game of the year, you'd stake NH's job solely on the outcome of that game? They win that game, they are 82-80 and are a "winning" team but . . . they aren't contending for the division title. Or . . because they didn't "contend" for the division, he should be canned? What if the Reds win 95 games, the Dodgers win 97, the Giants win 93 and the Braves win 92 . . and the Bucs go 87-75 (finishing 8 games out of first place in division and 6 games out of wildcard contention)? Is that "contending?" Does winning 87 games save NH's job? Or, should it be measured on whether the Pirates are considered "contenders" in the last 15 games of the year? Or . . . do you look at whether Taillon is pitching well in AAA, whether Cole is pitching with the Big Club, whether Polanco and Hansen are progressing, whether Martin was a solid acquisition, whether Snider and/or Sanchez produce good numbers, what talent is acquired in with the draft picks, whether Bell progresses, who appears to be separating themselves in the minors, and what kind of year the Bucs have out of Jones, Barmes and Tabata? What happens with Liriano and Karstens? WHat happens with Morton? Does Grilli perform well? In my world, the best GM in the world would have penicled in Walker, McCutchen, Alvarez and Marte into the lineup. The question marks for position players involved SS, C, RF and 1B. NH decided to stick with Barmes, sign Martin, stick with Snider, Sanchez and Jones (while grabbing potential insurance with Hawpe, Robinson, Inge, etc). Most GMs would have stayed with Burnett, Rodriguez, and McDonald. That leaves two spots in the rotation. NH elected not to tender Karstens and tried to replace him with Liriano. He chose to bet that either Locke or McPherson will be able to handle the #5 slot and likely believes that Cole will be ready in June or July. When Liriano went down, Karstens was re-signed (at a cost less than what he originally sought after very little interest was shown in him). He let Hanrahan go and obtained Melancon. He tendered Morton even though Morton is hurt. In my mind, NH should be evaluated on the strategic moves he made and how those moves panned out. If McCutchen and Alvarez don't produce, Andrew Friedman wouldn't have made the team a contender. If all of his moves play out well and ALvarez, Marte, Walker and McCutchen produce, the Bucs should win at least 85 games. However, I can envision a fair number of scenarios where his moves play out well but the team doesn't "contend" or loses more than 81 games.

You've conveniently attempted to turn my point about NH's drafts into a discussion about his overall job performance and the failure to make the playoffs in the 5 years in which he has served as GM. My original point about comparing draft results remains. The only first round draft pick that he has made that hasn't advanced as hoped for is Tony Sanchez and that is due in part to (a) him getting hit in the face and missing a significant amount of time and (b) regression from previous years. However, the 2009 draft was largely referred to as having Strasburg and Ackley and then a bunch of "meeeeeh." Now, did NH miss out on Trout? You bet he did. But so did a lot of others. Further evidence of the difficulty of predicting how young players will advance through the minors.



J_C_Steel wrote:
Let me tell you a few of things I know about baseball. I don't know much (YOUR WORDS . . . NOT MINE), but I know these things:

1. They keep score.
2. There is a winner and loser of each game.
3. GMs are judged by how many games their teams win or lose.

Every single major-league GM in baseball uses a sophisticated method based on reams of data and hours of analysis to make decisions. And every GM competes against every other GM to craft a better baseball team.

So far, Neal Huntington has failed to build a winning baseball team. He's had five seasons. He's entering his sixth at the helm. He's done some good things; he's done some dumb things. But overall, he hasn't built a contender. That's what he was tasked to do. If he doesn't do it this year, I'm betting he gets tossed out on his ear. And he'll deserve it.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5096
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
Now you've confused me. Earlier you wrote that NH has to preside over a "winner." Below you write that he's tasked to "build a contender." So . . . if the Pirates are not contending for the division title but sit at 81-80 going into the last game of the year, you'd stake NH's job solely on the outcome of that game? They win that game, they are 82-80 and are a "winning" team but . . . they aren't contending for the division title. Or . . because they didn't "contend" for the division, he should be canned? What if the Reds win 95 games, the Dodgers win 97, the Giants win 93 and the Braves win 92 . . and the Bucs go 87-75 (finishing 8 games out of first place in division and 6 games out of wildcard contention)? Is that "contending?" Does winning 87 games save NH's job? Or, should it be measured on whether the Pirates are considered "contenders" in the last 15 games of the year? Or . . . do you look at whether Taillon is pitching well in AAA, whether Cole is pitching with the Big Club, whether Polanco and Hansen are progressing, whether Martin was a solid acquisition, whether Snider and/or Sanchez produce good numbers, what talent is acquired in with the draft picks, whether Bell progresses, who appears to be separating themselves in the minors, and what kind of year the Bucs have out of Jones, Barmes and Tabata? What happens with Liriano and Karstens? WHat happens with Morton? Does Grilli perform well? In my world, the best GM in the world would have penicled in Walker, McCutchen, Alvarez and Marte into the lineup. The question marks for position players involved SS, C, RF and 1B. NH decided to stick with Barmes, sign Martin, stick with Snider, Sanchez and Jones (while grabbing potential insurance with Hawpe, Robinson, Inge, etc). Most GMs would have stayed with Burnett, Rodriguez, and McDonald. That leaves two spots in the rotation. NH elected not to tender Karstens and tried to replace him with Liriano. He chose to bet that either Locke or McPherson will be able to handle the #5 slot and likely believes that Cole will be ready in June or July. When Liriano went down, Karstens was re-signed (at a cost less than what he originally sought after very little interest was shown in him). He let Hanrahan go and obtained Melancon. He tendered Morton even though Morton is hurt. In my mind, NH should be evaluated on the strategic moves he made and how those moves panned out. If McCutchen and Alvarez don't produce, Andrew Friedman wouldn't have made the team a contender. If all of his moves play out well and ALvarez, Marte, Walker and McCutchen produce, the Bucs should win at least 85 games. However, I can envision a fair number of scenarios where his moves play out well but the team doesn't "contend" or loses more than 81 games.


You just wrote that paragraph and you're the confused one?

To clarify one thing, I believe the standard is contention and winning, not just winning. When I wrote "winner," I should have written "consistent winner" or "contender." If the Pirates win 85 games this year and content for a playoff spot in the last week of the season but come up short, I'll be disappointed but I probably won't be calling for anyone's head.

Look, I agree that there is nuance in every evaluation. I agree that the way the Pirates win, and whether the winning can be attributed to specific moves made by NH, are important factors in his evaluation. But at its essence, the job of GM of a baseball team is simple -- build a consistent contender. If the Pirates fall short this season, that means NH hasn't built a single winning, contending team in six years at the helm. To me, that's grounds for being fired, despite the good things he's done.

No. 9 wrote:
You've conveniently attempted to turn my point about NH's drafts into a discussion about his overall job performance and the failure to make the playoffs in the 5 years in which he has served as GM. My original point about comparing draft results remains. The only first round draft pick that he has made that hasn't advanced as hoped for is Tony Sanchez and that is due in part to (a) him getting hit in the face and missing a significant amount of time and (b) regression from previous years. However, the 2009 draft was largely referred to as having Strasburg and Ackley and then a bunch of "meeeeeh." Now, did NH miss out on Trout? You bet he did. But so did a lot of others. Further evidence of the difficulty of predicting how young players will advance through the minors.


Your argument is basically: "This isn't exact science. This is hard." You're right. But NH is competing against 29 other GMs for talent in the draft, and he's gotten a head start by drafting near the top every year. In my view, and the views of many others, he hasn't brought in as much talent as he should have over the past five years.

Look at the St. Louis Cardinals. Look at where they have consistently drafted. Look at their farm system.

The Pirates can do better than NH, Greg Smith, Larry Broadway, and Kyle Stark. That's my opinion. And I have plenty of support for it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
Your argument is basically: "This isn't exact science. This is hard." You're right. But NH is competing against 29 other GMs for talent in the draft, and he's gotten a head start by drafting near the top every year. In my view, and the views of many others, he hasn't brought in as much talent as he should have over the past five years.

Look at the St. Louis Cardinals. Look at where they have consistently drafted. Look at their farm system.

The Pirates can do better than NH, Greg Smith, Larry Broadway, and Kyle Stark. That's my opinion. And I have plenty of support for it.


You say that you have support. I say show me. You've pointed out one draft - the 2009 draft - as evidence of incompentence. What teams are getting consistently better results from their #2 pick, their #3 pick, their #4 pick, etc? I picked one example . . of a GM who receives nothing but rave reviews and his draft results aren't particularly different than Huntington's. Huntington's critics claim that Alvarez, Taillon and Cole were no brainers and he deserves no credit for those. Assuming that to be true (and I'm not buying the argument hook, line and sinker) . . . show me your support. What GM's drafts have been consistently better than NH's?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Grilli Blasts the PBC's Management Team
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5096
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
You say that you have support. I say show me. You've pointed out one draft - the 2009 draft - as evidence of incompentence. What teams are getting consistently better results from their #2 pick, their #3 pick, their #4 pick, etc? I picked one example . . of a GM who receives nothing but rave reviews and his draft results aren't particularly different than Huntington's. Huntington's critics claim that Alvarez, Taillon and Cole were no brainers and he deserves no credit for those. Assuming that to be true (and I'm not buying the argument hook, line and sinker) . . . show me your support. What GM's drafts have been consistently better than NH's?


I have shown you. I've put the evidence out there for everyone to see -- the Pirates can do better than the current management group.

Read the long thread to which I linked. I break down a ton of NH's trades and free agent acquisitions, as well as draft picks.

And by the way, I'm not among those who give NH "no credit" for Alvarez, Taillon, and Cole. His regime drafted those players. His regime developed those players. His regime is responsible for their success or failure. Which means NH's crew is responsible for Alvarez's awful 2011 season to go along with his decent 2012 campaign.

As to your question, I believe it's irrelevant in abstentia. I want to know how NH uses his drafts to supplement his international signings, trades, and free agent acquisitions to build a contending ball club. THAT is what I care about. I think that's what you care about. I'm pretty sure you don't care if NH "wins" the MLB Draft. You don't get a trophy for that. You get a trophy for winning the damn World Series. I want a GM of the Pirates able to use all of the tools at his disposal to build a consistently winning team. Has NH done that? No. Not one winning, contending team in his first five years. Two decent starts to seasons ending with epic collapses.

We are in Year 6, my friend. How much more time do you give NH to lose before he puts a contending team on the field, No. 9? How many years does it take?

Jocketty took the Reds to the playoffs in his third season.
Friedman took the Rays to the World Series in his third season.
Mozeliak has been running the Cardinals like a Swiss clock since 2007.

I want a guy who can lead the PBC into the playoffs and keep them contending. I want a Jocketty/Friedman/Mozeliak. What do you want? To give NH more time?


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits