PDA

View Full Version : Brian Kenny Embarrasses Chris Russo in Votto Debate (Starts at 5:30)



JoshBresser
02-14-2015, 12:34 PM
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/7417714/v37234509/brian-kenny-vs-chris-russo-on-high-heat

Good stuff.

gilpdawg
02-14-2015, 01:54 PM
Wow. Russo might be one of the dumbest living persons on earth

gilpdawg
02-14-2015, 01:55 PM
Wow. Russo might be one of the dumbest living persons on earth.

JoshBresser
02-14-2015, 02:00 PM
Wow. Russo might be one of the dumbest living persons on earth.

And his voice.....ugh.

DanielPlainview
02-14-2015, 02:16 PM
I'm no fan of Kenny either but I watch much less of the mlb network than I used to because of the time devoted to Chris Russo and high heat. I even mute the HH commercials when they come on. Those and any commercial with Samuel L. Jackson. Maybe I'm an old fart but I can't stand being yelled at by anyone. Let alone complete strangers on my idiot box.

JoshBresser
02-14-2015, 02:29 PM
I'm no fan of Kenny either but I watch much less of the mlb network than I used to because of the time devoted to Chris Russo and high heat. I even mute the HH commercials when they come on. Those and any commercial with Samuel L. Jackson. Maybe I'm an old fart but I can't stand being yelled at by anyone. Let alone complete strangers on my idiot box.

We challenged Christopher Russo not to speak for 30 seconds....

Then we told him the latest offseason trade rumor

Old school 1983
02-14-2015, 04:55 PM
The debate could actually be interesting if the person on Russos side wasn't a loud obnoxious charicature of someone who challenges sabermetrics. Someone who could speak intelligently, in a non pestering fashion, while actually making some thought out arguments would be more entertaining than the debate equivalent of the first college football game of the year where Kenny plays the top ten powerhouse and Russo plays the never been ranked sisters of the poor and loses 100-3

gilpdawg
02-15-2015, 01:51 AM
I think I was mostly annoyed with Russo's undeserving dismissive attitude toward Ben Zobrist.

JayBruceFan
02-17-2015, 08:53 PM
Russo is a clown

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 11:38 AM
Brian Kenny is an EMBARRASSMENT. The typical stats nerd. Never played the game ABOVE what, T-Ball. What a tool.

JoshBresser
02-18-2015, 12:31 PM
Brian Kenny is an EMBARRASSMENT. The typical stats nerd. Never played the game ABOVE what, T-Ball. What a tool.

Neither has Russo, funny enough

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 12:38 PM
Neither has Russo, funny enough

True. But I find it comical when Kenny takes on and argues former MLB players such as Reynolds, Lowell, and Plesac. The only person on that network worth watching is Millar.

RedTeamGo!
02-18-2015, 05:33 PM
True. But I find it comical when Kenny takes on and argues former MLB players such as Reynolds, Lowell, and Plesac. The only person on that network worth watching is Millar.

Reynolds says a lot of ridiculous things and completely ignores statistics other than batting average, RBI and home runs.

God forbid anyone questions anyone that played major league baseball about baseball.

JoshBresser
02-18-2015, 05:46 PM
Reynolds says a lot of ridiculous things and completely ignores statistics other than batting average, RBI and home runs.

God forbid anyone questions anyone that played major league baseball about baseball.

Reynolds is arguably the most ignorant "analyst" I've ever heard.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 06:28 PM
Neither has Russo, funny enough

The best point that Rizzo was trying to make is, what I think Brennamen is trying to make about Votto.

Rizzo said, the difference between DiMaggio and Williams, (and I am paraphrasing here) is that Phil Rizzuto said DiMaggio was all about winning, and essentially, Williams was all about his offensive stats.

I believe the knock on Votto is he same, as some people feel he is so enamored with his OBP, that when push comes to shove he will not sacrifice that for a ground ball that would drive in a run or a sac fly.

Another irony is that Brennamen idolizes Williams, and Votto holds his stats and bases his game off of Williams

RedTeamGo!
02-18-2015, 07:03 PM
He said Williams was all about hitting.

One of the most ridiculous quotes I have ever heard. But, it must be true because Phil Rizzuto said it.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 07:18 PM
He said Williams was all about hitting.

One of the most ridiculous quotes I have ever heard. But, it must be true because Phil Rizzuto said it.

Williams had a 4 or 5 arm. Great athlete, but even in his autobiography he said time and time again he took his at bats out with him to the outfield.

Williams, was ALL ABOUT HITTING. It's ok, it is what it is. He had decent speed, but he was an average outfielder, in part because he played in an easy outfield for 77 games a season, and because he had a cannon of an arm. But, tracking flyballs was not in his interest.

Which is why, among other reasons, DiMaggio was the better of the two. DiMaggio brought it all to the table. Defense, power, average, arm, and decent speed for a big man.

Ted was a great man, and a great example of a true American, but he was all about offense. It is what it is, RedTeamGo.

RedTeamGo!
02-19-2015, 12:00 AM
Fine, but by saying he was "all about hitting" it implies he did not care about winning and was not a team player.

I think that's bs.

Billy Budd
02-19-2015, 10:34 AM
Fine, but by saying he was "all about hitting" it implies he did not care about winning and was not a team player.

I think that's bs.

I can only go with what Rizzuto implied. It seems clear when reading Halberstam's book Summer of 49. DiMaggio was all about winning. Williams....

MikeThierry
02-20-2015, 06:08 PM
Brian Kenny is an EMBARRASSMENT. The typical stats nerd. Never played the game ABOVE what, T-Ball. What a tool.

Because we all know that nobody who played that game can't look at the given stats and give an objective analysis. They have to play the game first to be considered legitimate..... makes sense. :rolleyes:


This line of thinking, for years, has been one of the dumbest types of straw-man arguments out there and is always used to legitimize bad opinions. "How can you call the thought process flawed? Did you ever play the game?".

John Mozeliak, GM of the Cardinals, never played the game at any level above high school. He is one of those "stats nerds" yet I don't think you would argue that he somehow isn't clued into the game and how the game is played. There are a ton of people out there that didn't play sports at more than a high school level yet are legitimate mouth pieces in their respective sports they cover.

MikeThierry
02-20-2015, 06:10 PM
I can only go with what Rizzuto implied. It seems clear when reading Halberstam's book Summer of 49. DiMaggio was all about winning. Williams....

That's pretty silly on Rizzuto's part. I'm sure Williams would have had the same mentality as DiMaggio if the Red Sox were ever really good while Williams played. The effort Williams put in wouldn't have changed anything while on those Red Sox teams just as DiMaggio's "wanting to win" had nothing to do with the Yankees success at those times.

Billy Budd
02-20-2015, 06:49 PM
That's pretty silly on Rizzuto's part. I'm sure Williams would have had the same mentality as DiMaggio if the Red Sox were ever really good while Williams played. The effort Williams put in wouldn't have changed anything while on those Red Sox teams just as DiMaggio's "wanting to win" had nothing to do with the Yankees success at those times.

I am sure that you know your baseball history. You seem knowledgeable, and judging that Musial is your representative, then you know who the Cardinals beat in 1946. William's Boston teams from 39-51 compared to DiMaggio's teams (Minus the war years)

1939 NYY 106-45 Boston 89-62
1940 NYY 88 -66 Boston 82-72
1941 NYY 101-53 Boston 84-70
1946 Boston 104-50 NYY 87-67
1947 NYY 97-57 Boston 83-71
1948 Boston 96-59 NYY 94-60
1949 NYY 97-57 Boston 96-58
1950 NYY 98-56 Boston 94-60
1951 NYY 98-56 Boston 87-67

Yankees 866 - 517 .626 Winning Percentage
Red Sox 815 - 569 .588 Winning Percentage

Williams' Red Sox were NEVER not competitive during the 1940's. They had some of the best pitchers and hitters in the game at the time. They were as much on equal to the Yankees as any other team.

But, I am sure you are aware of that, and probably just was thinking of the 1950's Red Sox teams.
Again--I can only go on what Phil Rizzuto said, sorry if it upsets you. I suggest a good read would be the Summer of 49 by Halberstam.

Billy Budd
02-20-2015, 06:54 PM
My favorite thing about Kenny is when he argues with former players about things such as leadership, chemistry, confidence in players and their performance.
Fine, if I was too harsh about Kenny and I pushed a button on you, forgive me.
However, what Sabermetricians do not get, or fail to really make a stat for or whatever, are the intangibles that players bring to the table.
And unless you have been in a clubhouse on a team, and really have been a part of that team, that is a HUGE piece of a puzzle that numbers people do not get.

I am not saying it is the end all, be all. But players such as Jeter, Rose, Larkin, were just as big of a part of their team's success as the stats numbers they brought to the table.

MikeThierry
02-20-2015, 07:07 PM
My favorite thing about Kenny is when he argues with former players about things such as leadership, chemistry, confidence in players and their performance.
Fine, if I was too harsh about Kenny and I pushed a button on you, forgive me.
However, what Sabermetricians do not get, or fail to really make a stat for or whatever, are the intangibles that players bring to the table.
And unless you have been in a clubhouse on a team, and really have been a part of that team, that is a HUGE piece of a puzzle that numbers people do not get.

I am not saying it is the end all, be all. But players such as Jeter, Rose, Larkin, were just as big of a part of their team's success as the stats numbers they brought to the table.

I don't think anyone who embraces heavily into sabermetrics denies that there aren't intangibles. It's just that they believe that you can only really rely on things that can be quantified. That isn't to say that leadership skills aren't valuable but intangibles aren't going to override the analysis if one player is worse than another player and that other worse player somehow has leadership abilities. No GM worth his salt is going to pick a player based on intangibles. Kenny has never really poopoo'd leadership. He just hasn't used it as his central argument because there are things out there that can quantify play on the field. Yes Jeter, Rose, and Larkin had intangibles such as leadership but their athletic ability and how good they were led them to have a leadership voice in the club house. A nobody couldn't step into a leadership role without the ability to play great on the field.

MikeThierry
02-20-2015, 07:11 PM
I am sure that you know your baseball history. You seem knowledgeable, and judging that Musial is your representative, then you know who the Cardinals beat in 1946. William's Boston teams from 39-51 compared to DiMaggio's teams (Minus the war years)

1939 NYY 106-45 Boston 89-62
1940 NYY 88 -66 Boston 82-72
1941 NYY 101-53 Boston 84-70
1946 Boston 104-50 NYY 87-67
1947 NYY 97-57 Boston 83-71
1948 Boston 96-59 NYY 94-60
1949 NYY 97-57 Boston 96-58
1950 NYY 98-56 Boston 94-60
1951 NYY 98-56 Boston 87-67

Yankees 866 - 517 .626 Winning Percentage
Red Sox 815 - 569 .588 Winning Percentage

Williams' Red Sox were NEVER not competitive during the 1940's. They had some of the best pitchers and hitters in the game at the time. They were as much on equal to the Yankees as any other team.

But, I am sure you are aware of that, and probably just was thinking of the 1950's Red Sox teams.
Again--I can only go on what Phil Rizzuto said, sorry if it upsets you. I suggest a good read would be the Summer of 49 by Halberstam.

Nothing is upsetting to me, it's just an odd statement on his part. I may have overstated that they weren't good. They weren't good enough to beat the Yankees in the division. Things wouldn't be any different if Williams somehow didn't worry about his stats and played the game like DiMaggio. It seems like a false argument on Rizzuto's part and like someone trying to pump up his teammates legacy.

Tony Cloninger
02-22-2015, 04:01 PM
I am sure that you know your baseball history. You seem knowledgeable, and judging that Musial is your representative, then you know who the Cardinals beat in 1946. William's Boston teams from 39-51 compared to DiMaggio's teams (Minus the war years)

1939 NYY 106-45 Boston 89-62
1940 NYY 88 -66 Boston 82-72
1941 NYY 101-53 Boston 84-70
1946 Boston 104-50 NYY 87-67
1947 NYY 97-57 Boston 83-71
1948 Boston 96-59 NYY 94-60
1949 NYY 97-57 Boston 96-58
1950 NYY 98-56 Boston 94-60
1951 NYY 98-56 Boston 87-67

Yankees 866 - 517 .626 Winning Percentage
Red Sox 815 - 569 .588 Winning Percentage

Williams' Red Sox were NEVER not competitive during the 1940's. They had some of the best pitchers and hitters in the game at the time. They were as much on equal to the Yankees as any other team.

But, I am sure you are aware of that, and probably just was thinking of the 1950's Red Sox teams.
Again--I can only go on what Phil Rizzuto said, sorry if it upsets you. I suggest a good read would be the Summer of 49 by Halberstam.


The Sox had great or some of the best pitchers in the game during the 40's?

Pound for pound... they were not even better than the Indians or White Sox pitching staffs in the 40's. As a collective staff the Yankees and Indians had way more depth and the best pitchers in the game.

Billy Budd
02-24-2015, 12:42 AM
The Sox had great or some of the best pitchers in the game during the 40's?

Pound for pound... they were not even better than the Indians or White Sox pitching staffs in the 40's. As a collective staff the Yankees and Indians had way more depth and the best pitchers in the game.

Fair enough.

Trajinous
02-24-2015, 06:32 PM
Every time that guy talked I could feel my brain cells dying.

Trajinous
02-24-2015, 06:46 PM
I am not saying it is the end all, be all. But players such as Jeter, Rose, Larkin, were just as big of a part of their team's success as the stats numbers they brought to the table.

It's funny how you pick player examples that have great sabremetric numbers. This has been argued over and over. Sabremetric stats are just one tool to analyze player's performance. It's not the end all be all of approaches. To think that a writer is using sabremetrics exclusively shows that you are wrong and out of touch. Education is power.

8694

demas863
02-28-2015, 02:46 PM
Wow. Russo might be one of the dumbest living persons on earth

He reminds me of Satch on the Bowery Boys.

Billy Budd
02-28-2015, 11:20 PM
Thanks. Duly noted.