PDA

View Full Version : Indside Scoop re: the front office



Benihana
11-26-2005, 11:08 AM
Thought this would be very interesting for most of you...I spoke to someone last night who, let's just say, is very closely connected to the team (or at least will be by the end of the year ;)), and he informed me that Lou Pinella was in town last week to discuss the GENERAL MANAGER position, not the field manager as was originally speculated. While nothing is imminent, the courting process has definitely begun.

I know all the "inside scoop" posts on here are usually trashed and the poster is at risk of having his/her credibility attacked (and sometimes rightly so), but I just thought I'd pass that along to those of you that may be interested. Not saying that anything will happen for sure, but just the possibility being discussed is quite intriguing. Have a great day!

MWM
11-26-2005, 11:22 AM
I sure hope this doesn't come to pass.

traderumor
11-26-2005, 11:24 AM
Your sig, if meaning UM, is one strike against your credibility (sorry MWM) ;)

Unassisted
11-26-2005, 11:25 AM
Ha! Thought so (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=849195&postcount=26). :D

westofyou
11-26-2005, 11:27 AM
I sure hope this doesn't come to pass.The guy was GM for one year, 18 years ago.

Murphys Law plus the Reds AND their fans inability to seperate the past from the future place the odds of it happening dangerously high.

westofyou
11-26-2005, 11:28 AM
Your sig, if meaning UM, is one strike against your credibility (sorry MWM) ;)Ahem.....

Team Clark
11-26-2005, 11:28 AM
I can back that up. Lou was here by invitation and did discuss the GM post. He was luke warm to the idea.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2005, 11:56 AM
If this is true, and I suspect it is, then all I can say is, I warned you about getting excited about the new regime. I fully expect the same old crap from this new crew--small-minded, hidebound losers.

Willy
11-26-2005, 12:22 PM
Why not discuss him being the Manager, if he wasn't up for the GM position?

With all the interesting GM canidates out there, what would the new owners want with Pinella?

Seems like a questionble first move, but I guess it might be better than Dan O.

Unassisted
11-26-2005, 12:35 PM
With all the interesting GM canidates out there, what would the new owners want with Pinella?Off the top of my head:

Should work cheaper than a proven GM. This is still a small-market team, after all.

Brings a name who fans link with past Reds glory and who will be automatically perceived as putting things back on the path to glory.

Widely known as a fiery personality who will be perceived as shaking things up in the front office. Thus giving the aura of substantial change when compared to the milquetoast persona of the current GM.

Reds4Life
11-26-2005, 12:46 PM
Lou isn't GM material, manager yes, GM no.

Team Clark, have you heard if Lou would be interested in the manager job here?

Redmachine2003
11-26-2005, 01:07 PM
So this means DanO is truely a lame duck GM. Lets just hope the sell goes through next week and a new GM is in place by the winter meetings.

Team Clark
11-26-2005, 01:07 PM
Lou isn't GM material, manager yes, GM no.

Team Clark, have you heard if Lou would be interested in the manager job here?


IF, and I do mean IF Lou were to take the post I FIRMLY believe it would be a Bobby Cox situation. GM for maybe a year, possibly two, then get back in the hot seat. Dan O, Dean Taylor, Tim Naehring, Grant Griesser, most of the marketing department, public relations and stadium operations folks are all looking to be replaced. As they should be.

Reds4Life
11-26-2005, 02:28 PM
IF, and I do mean IF Lou were to take the post I FIRMLY believe it would be a Bobby Cox situation. GM for maybe a year, possibly two, then get back in the hot seat. Dan O, Dean Taylor, Tim Naehring, Grant Griesser, most of the marketing department, public relations and stadium operations folks are all looking to be replaced. As they should be.

I love Lou, but I think hiring him as the GM, even for a short while, wouldnít be a smart idea. He has very limited experience and managing a team on the field if a lot different than building one. Even if heís the GM for year, thatís another year wasted. If the ultimate goal is to slide Lou into the managers slot than axe Narron now and get it over with. This franchise is so far behind it doesnít have the luxury of wasting anymore time.

Paul DePodesta is still floating out there; Iíd like to see the Reds make a play for him. He hasnít seen much interest from other teams and might be willing to come here now, heís the type of chance the Reds need to take.

Krusty
11-26-2005, 03:09 PM
First thing the new ownership needs to do is fire John Allen and hire a well repected baseball person to run the CEO position of this outfit.

marcshoe
11-26-2005, 03:53 PM
Beyond the question of whether Pinella's the ideal GM, (probably not, but I haven't given it much thought--this is an edit, I seem to have deleted part of this sentence before posting originally), the basic good news of this thread, then, is that there will likely be a new GM.

Which is good news indeed.

Beyond that, Krusty's hit on the big point.

I'm ready for as clean a sweep as possible in the front office. Time for the organization to stop chasing its tail, or however you want to characterize these last frustrating few years.

wheels
11-26-2005, 05:15 PM
Let's hope Lou isn't interested.

I like the guy. He's funny.

But he's not GM material.

Redmachine2003
11-26-2005, 06:44 PM
Has Allens contracted been renewed? I like Sweet Lou for Manager but for GM I don't think so.

Ron Madden
11-26-2005, 06:55 PM
[QUOTE=Willy]

With all the interesting GM canidates out there, what would the new owners want with Pinella?

I like Lou, I'm thankfull for all he has done for the Reds in the past.

I think it's time move on, we must stop living in the past and look to the future.

I'd much rather have Brad Kullman as GM than Lou or Dan eighther one.

flyer85
11-26-2005, 07:01 PM
I can back that up. Lou was here by invitation and did discuss the GM post. He was luke warm to the idea.whew.

Chip R
11-26-2005, 07:03 PM
Perhaps Lou would be the GM in name only while people like Kullman actually do the dirty work, so to speak. I doubt he comes here but could he do a worse job than DanO? Who's to say he wouldn't be able to be a good GM?

Ron Madden
11-26-2005, 07:11 PM
Lou very well could turn out to be a good GM.

Or at least as good or better than O'Brien. I don't think I'd roll the dice to find out for sure while other qualified guys are still out there.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2005, 07:39 PM
I doubt he comes here but could he do a worse job than DanO?

You're in trouble when you have to ask the question beginning: "Could he do worse...."

WVRedsFan
11-26-2005, 08:04 PM
Perhaps Lou would be the GM in name only while people like Kullman actually do the dirty work, so to speak. I doubt he comes here but could he do a worse job than DanO? Who's to say he wouldn't be able to be a good GM?

I would hope that whoever the new GM is, that he would be allowed to name his own staff. Surely these new owners would not commit another "Gullett" mistake of having a manager put up with somebody else's staff? Or would they?

MartyFan
11-26-2005, 09:26 PM
I think Lou would be the best candidate for the gig in the broadcast booth...TV and or Radio...don't forget the rumor swirling around about the new ownership also moving the games from WLW...so, maybe they make a clean start all the way around?

I am not crazy bout the idea of Lou as Manager or GM...

acredsfan
11-27-2005, 01:26 AM
I'm thankful that something is happening behind the scenes. I don't know much about Lou's GM abilities, but man, it sure would be nice to get rid of the indecisiveness of the current GM. DanO just isn't fit for a small market team where every decision plays such a big part in the team success. The larger market teams have the ability to cover up some of their mistakes, but the Milton, Ortiz, Graves, and Wilson mistakes of this year were just outstanding. There's no way a team on such a tight payroll can afford these problems. Sometime inactivity by DanO has been the biggest problem. He just doesn't seem to be able to make the big deals when he needs to. We have to face it, the "qualified" and "proven" GMs just aren't likely to come to a small market team with the problems that we have had. In my opinion, we have only one option, that is to take a chance on a guy. I'm not saying to go with someone who has absolutely no experience and no potential, but the chances of getting a Depodesta or Epstein type GM is very slim. At this point, I feel like anybody would be an upgrade!

RFS62
11-27-2005, 01:31 AM
Yeah, I agree with Acreredsfan. Think about it. Lou may not be the right choice, but if the new management is really thinking about bringing in a name GM who would no doubt demand big bucks, that's a step in the right direction.

Ron Madden
11-27-2005, 01:58 AM
I think I understand your point about the new owners willing to spend "Big Bucks" as a step in the right direction....But wouldn't it seem just as silly to spend a pile of money on Pinella to be GM, as it was to throw all that money at Milton to pitch?

I'm all for spending money but spend it right.

Aronchis
11-27-2005, 04:00 AM
I'm thankful that something is happening behind the scenes. I don't know much about Lou's GM abilities, but man, it sure would be nice to get rid of the indecisiveness of the current GM. DanO just isn't fit for a small market team where every decision plays such a big part in the team success. The larger market teams have the ability to cover up some of their mistakes, but the Milton, Ortiz, Graves, and Wilson mistakes of this year were just outstanding. There's no way a team on such a tight payroll can afford these problems. Sometime inactivity by DanO has been the biggest problem. He just doesn't seem to be able to make the big deals when he needs to. We have to face it, the "qualified" and "proven" GMs just aren't likely to come to a small market team with the problems that we have had. In my opinion, we have only one option, that is to take a chance on a guy. I'm not saying to go with someone who has absolutely no experience and no potential, but the chances of getting a Depodesta or Epstein type GM is very slim. At this point, I feel like anybody would be an upgrade!

DanO doesn't fit a large market either. Don't blame Graves on him, he tried moving him in 2004 and was blocked though Danny's contract is null and void now anyway you look past it. His small window to move Wilson evaporated and I don't know if he would have had final permission to finish the deal. How is Ortiz a major blunder? The guy was stopgap. He didn't pan out, which doesn't bode well for the Reds Front Office staff in finding these "types", but nobody said DanO was good. One, real blunder, that was Milton. DanO was probably one of the most controlled GM's in the league do to the pending ownership change which has been in the works since 2003.

DanO's ideal was to level the team keep a few select players and start over while drafting up the farm system.

His plan was never doable concerning the future of the ownership which was going to keep the core players and moving just about ANY of them required permission. Now do you understand why DanO was hired eh? Maybe it makes sense. It also makes sense why the ownership unit alocated millions to payroll. DanO's could have really built his resume on it, but just couldn't get it done.

SteelSD
11-27-2005, 04:50 AM
DanO doesn't fit a large market either.

Yeah, because he stinks.


Don't blame Graves on him, he tried moving him in 2004 and was blocked though Danny's contract is null and void now anyway you look past it.

He was "blocked" while attempting to trade Graves in 2004? Do you have a reference source for this?


His small window to move Wilson evaporated and I don't know if he would have had final permission to finish the deal.

Yeah. His "window" evaporated because he couldn't figure out how to trade Wilson to a team that wanted him and was willing to pay what the Reds wanted for him. I'm sure it was the "window's" fault.


How is Ortiz a major blunder? The guy was stopgap. He didn't pan out, which doesn't bode well for the Reds Front Office staff in finding these "types", but nobody said DanO was good.

If you trade a resource for a crappy pitcher and then pay said crappy pitcher millions to be crappy, that's a "major blunder".


One, real blunder, that was Milton.

Actually, that's just the one blunder you can't find a convenient excuse for.


DanO was probably one of the most controlled GM's in the league do to the pending ownership change which has been in the works since 2003.

Yeah, generally teams give 17 million bucks to a guy in the offseason in order to better control him. Sure.


DanO's ideal was to level the team keep a few select players and start over while drafting up the farm system.

His plan was never doable concerning the future of the ownership which was going to keep the core players and moving just about ANY of them required permission.

I suppose now you'll claim to have swiped the pages from O'Brien's binder that outline this alleged "plan".

Even if not, let me get this straight...

1. Lindner knew he wanted to sell a long time ago.
2. Dan O'Brien outlined an alleged "plan" that involved moving out a bunch of vet players during his interview.
3. Linder didn't want to move anyone because he knew he was going to sell.
4. Lindner liked Dan O'Brien's plan to move a bunch of players Lindner didn't want to move so much that he overruled John Allen and hired O'Brien anyway.
5. While Lindner was attempting to maintain status quo, he handed Dan O'Brien 17 million dollars to increase the payroll because Lindner felt that an additional 17 million dollars of payroll would be attractive to potential buyers.

So not only was Dan O'Brien "prevented" from implementing a MLB-level plan that Carl Lindner shouldn't have directly opposed before hiring O'Brien, but Linder also prevented O'Brien from paring payroll knowing that he was selling AND allowed O'Brien to add 17 million bucks to the payroll because everyone knows it's good to increase your operating costs while negotiating a sale.

That's as convoluted as it gets.


Now do you understand why DanO was hired eh? Maybe it makes sense. It also makes sense why the ownership unit alocated millions to payroll.

No, it actually doesn't make sense. But then, fairy tales don't unless you're able to suspend disbelief.


DanO's could have really built his resume on it, but just couldn't get it done.

Yeah, because he stinks.

RANDY IN INDY
11-27-2005, 08:31 AM
Any chance you jumping on the Dan "O" bandwagon, Steel?;)

4256 Hits
11-27-2005, 09:49 AM
But wouldn't it seem just as silly to spend a pile of money on Pinella to be GM, as it was to throw all that money at Milton to pitch?



The one difference is that it was proven that Milton couldn't pitch before he signed the contract; it isn't proven that Lou couldn't be a good GM. Not that I think it would be good to have him as a GM it just that we don't know for sure how good he would be.

westofyou
11-27-2005, 10:53 AM
71 years ago the Reds stunk and they had a new GM.

HE had a plan.

http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/reds_34.gif

CrackerJack
11-27-2005, 12:09 PM
First thing the new ownership needs to do is fire John Allen and hire a well repected baseball person to run the CEO position of this outfit.

Now THAT is a good idea'r.

Reds Nd2
11-27-2005, 12:10 PM
71 years ago the Reds stunk and they had a new GM.

HE had a plan.

He did bring night baseball to Cincinnati.

acredsfan
11-27-2005, 08:03 PM
DanO doesn't fit a large market either. Don't blame Graves on him, he tried moving him in 2004 and was blocked though Danny's contract is null and void now anyway you look past it. His small window to move Wilson evaporated and I don't know if he would have had final permission to finish the deal.I wasn't blaming Graves completely on DanO, I realize that he couldn't control the original contract, but he was in control when they decided to let him go and didn't complete a trade with him. Who knows if he could or not, but obviously the Mets had to be a little interested if they claimed him.

How is Ortiz a major blunder? The guy was stopgap. He didn't pan out, which doesn't bode well for the Reds Front Office staff in finding these "types", but nobody said DanO was good. Come on now, how isn't he a major blunder? He is a $4 million blunder! The Angels had already given up on him as a starter, so that should tell you something. You can't devote a sizeable chunk such as that to one player who flopped so bad and not call it a blunder.
One, real blunder, that was Milton. DanO was probably one of the most controlled GM's in the league do to the pending ownership change which has been in the works since 2003. Man, I must have missed something, not that I'm doubting you, but if the sale has been in the works since then, why did Lindner allow DanO to spend $17 million in the first place? I don't care how controlled you think he may have been, the fact is he was given the money, he misused a large chunk of it, and he is the one who was in control of the process, I'm sure Lindner didn't hand him a list that said "#1. Sign a very mediocre pitcher for the sum of 25.5 million dollars over 3 years. #2. Sign a failed starter turned bullpen man to a contract worth around 4.5 million dollars for one year then an option for a second." It just didn't happen. We can blame the ownership all we want, but that doesn't negate the fact that DanO made the moves.
DanO's ideal was to level the team keep a few select players and start over while drafting up the farm system.

His plan was never doable concerning the future of the ownership which was going to keep the core players and moving just about ANY of them required permission. Now do you understand why DanO was hired eh? Maybe it makes sense. It also makes sense why the ownership unit alocated millions to payroll. DanO's could have really built his resume on it, but just couldn't get it done.If there is one thing I have learned, it is that you can't go at something with only one plan, and a key to success is versatility. If what you are saying is right, and his hands were tied, then I still maintain that he still shouldn't have signed Milton and Ortiz.

Caveat Emperor
11-27-2005, 11:30 PM
The Cincinnati Reds are living proof that if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there.

But, I give the new owners credit...a house cleaning has to be in order.

Aronchis
11-27-2005, 11:35 PM
Why did Lindner give DanO 17 million? Because he is the GM. He probably expected a better return than DanO gave unto it. BUT he also had controls on him that didn't allow for free movement of players easily either. In otherwords, players like Wilson, Graves, Casey ete needed "permission" from ownership to trade them and as seen with Griff, if it ain't there, nada nada nada. Graves final implosion happened a year early sadly enough for Carl.

Ortiz was a blunder, but his 1 year contract(essentially) gave the Reds a easy out if he struggled. Bad allocation of resources(blunder) but not the Miltonesque blunder that will go down in legend. That was a major blunder. Getting rid of Milton would be one of the first things as a new GM, I would look for, especially if he shows signs of being "Miltony" again(knee surgury lol).

acredsfan
11-27-2005, 11:49 PM
Why did Lindner give DanO 17 million? Because he is the GM. He probably expected a better return than DanO gave unto it. BUT he also had controls on him that didn't allow for free movement of players easily either. In otherwords, players like Wilson, Graves, Casey ete needed "permission" from ownership to trade them and as seen with Griff, if it ain't there, nada nada nada. Graves final implosion happened a year early sadly enough for Carl. Yeah, we heard all about Griffey's trade being blocked by Lindner, but I don't ever recall any story of a Wilson, Graves, or Casey trade that was blocked by Lindner, so my assumption is that DanO didn't even try. If you can prove otherwise, then maybe I'd consider giving DanO another chance....HA! Who am I kidding, he still can't make a key FA signing or scout talent, you can argue all you want about how DanO couldn't trade the key players, but that is all just speculation, and I'm a skeptic, so until someone who knows what really went on tells me otherwise, I am assuming that the lack of news about DanO trying to trade Graves, Wilson, or Casey means that he didn't even try.


Ortiz was a blunder, but his 1 year contract(essentially) gave the Reds a easy out if he struggled. Bad allocation of resources(blunder) but not the Miltonesque blunder that will go down in legend. That was a major blunder. Getting rid of Milton would be one of the first things as a new GM, I would look for, especially if he shows signs of being "Miltony" again(knee surgury lol).Good thought about getting rid of Milton, but there's no way that will happen, unless he starts turning it around to closer to his career norms, even then, our options would be limited. Its true that Ortiz's contract was a good thing (only being a 1 year contract with and option, not because of the money!), but to me that just shows the kind of people that DanO spends money on. It wouldn't have been too big of a deal if Ortiz was the only blunder this season, but the fact is, he wasn't.

Redsland
11-28-2005, 10:27 AM
In otherwords, players like Wilson, Graves, Casey ete needed "permission" from ownership to trade them and as seen with Griff, if it ain't there, nada nada nada.
Last I heard, Phil Nevin, who nixed the Jr. trade, was not "ownership."

Milezinni
11-28-2005, 05:03 PM
Dear Santa,

Anybody, ANYBODY but Paul DePodesta. Please, do NOT let "Moneyball" infiltrate an already struggling, once proud, now panhandling on a street corner franchise!

Please Santa!

The last thing the Reds need is to follow the latest theory or trend. Especially an already fading fad.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Why was Ortiz such a bust? Like anybody could have predicted how severe that pulled groin muscle was? Maybe the Angels knew? But, he is definitely a better pitcher than he showed us.

And I STILL say, ALL of these pitchers would have been better if there was actually some Major League caliber defense behind them....

Not that I like these pitchers, but........

Red Leader
11-28-2005, 05:06 PM
Dear Santa,

Why was Ortiz such a bust? Like anybody could have predicted how severe that pulled groin muscle was? Maybe the Angels knew? But, he is definitely a better pitcher than he showed us.




No, he's not!

S. Claus

gonelong
11-28-2005, 11:22 PM
Dear Santa,

Anybody, ANYBODY but Paul DePodesta. Please, do NOT let "Moneyball" infiltrate an already struggling, once proud, now panhandling on a street corner franchise!

Please Santa!

The last thing the Reds need is to follow the latest theory or trend. Especially an already fading fad.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


PS - thanks for the lump of coal again this year

flyer85
11-28-2005, 11:26 PM
Dano needs more time. He will figure it out in 9 or 10 years.

M2
11-28-2005, 11:44 PM
Who could have predicted that Ramon Ortiz was going to suck in 2005?

You mean aside from the dozens of people on this board who called it in advance and pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of statistical interpretation? The guy had a 5.00+ ERA as a starter in 2003 and 2004. His career year came thanks to the advent of extreme, once-in-a-lifetime good luck and his K rate had dropped, leading to a rise in his BA and SLG against totals. The guy throws a straight not-so-fastball, a change that hitters know to lay off and a sloppy, hit-me slider. I'm amazed that any sentient being expected him to succeed.

westofyou
11-29-2005, 11:16 AM
Dear Santa,

Anybody, ANYBODY but Paul DePodesta. Please, do NOT let "Moneyball" infiltrate an already struggling, once proud, now panhandling on a street corner franchise!

Please Santa!

The last thing the Reds need is to follow the latest theory or trend. Especially an already fading fad.


Moneyball is not Thomas Paine's Common Sense, inciting a people to rebellion. It isn't Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin or Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.


If you can do it with a flashlight, great. If you can do it with the Hubbell space telescope, swell. If you do it with statistics you're going to be mocked, but the ideas are still valid. The cosmic joke of the backlash is that no one has yet attacked sabermetrics on its merits. Those of us who work with performance analysis tools know that we rule the stats, the stats don't rule us. The same cannot be said for our critics.http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2740

scounts22
11-29-2005, 11:27 AM
Beyond the question of whether Pinella's the ideal GM, (probably not, but I haven't given it much thought--this is an edit, I seem to have deleted part of this sentence before posting originally), the basic good news of this thread, then, is that there will likely be a new GM.

Which is good news indeed.

Beyond that, Krusty's hit on the big point.

I'm ready for as clean a sweep as possible in the front office. Time for the organization to stop chasing its tail, or however you want to characterize these last frustrating few years.


Well said, I agree!:thumbup:

flyer85
11-29-2005, 11:43 AM
LIES, DAMNED LIES, WITHOUT STATISTICS - from Steve Goldman

The vastly overstated Beane/Moneyball/sabermetric bias against scouting is a red herring, as is the macho derision of sabermetricians. The truth is, while statistics provide the evidence for most of the new theories of the game, most of the ideas advocated by the so-called statheads can be explained by plain old common sense. Over in the Pinstriped Bible about a year and a half ago, I attempted to summarize what I had learned in 20 years of following baseball in the form of 19 "commandments." Let's revisit a few of those now and see if we can justify them in the most simplistic way possible, without resorting to "freaky" sabermetric weirdness--that is, no "advanced" stats, no math, which I can't do anyway:

It's how often a player reaches base that's important, not batting average, not RBI.
Baseball doesn't have a clock in the sense that football or basketball does, but it has outs, 27 of them, and each one an offense spends brings the game closer to extinction. The players who reach base most often are the ones most likely to put off the inevitable death of the offensive effort. The more your players get on base, the more your players get a chance to hit, meaning you score more runs.

Remember league and position averages: numbers have meaning only in context.
Hypothetical season: the Anaheim Angels' first baseman hit .275 and slugged .440. That seems pretty good, until you realize that the American League as a whole hit .277 and slugged .445, and that American League first basemen in particular hit .295 and slugged. 500. The Yankees often endured this problem with Tino Martinez. Baseball is, among other things, a game of matchups, of 'my first baseman is better than your first baseman.' It's not enough that your first baseman answers to an amorphous definition of "good"; where he ranks in the class is most important.

RBI are opportunistic; RBI are a team stat and are not indicative of a player's ability.
In 1985 Don Mattingly had a great year. The Yankees often batted Rickey Henderson first and Mattingly second. Henderson was having an even better year than Mattingly, reaching base 42% of the time and putting himself in scoring position constantly thanks to his 28 doubles, five triples, and 80 stolen bases--the last of which cost the Yankees only 10 caught stealing. At his peak, Henderson was the rare player where the rewards of stealing handily outweighed the risks. Hitting .324/.371/.567 behind this on-base dynamo, Mattingly drove in 145 runs and won the MVP award.

The next year, Mattingly was even better, improving his numbers to .352/.394/.573. Oddly, he drove in 32 fewer runs. The problem was Henderson, who saw his OBP drop to .358 in 1986, meaning he was on base less often. Better Mattingly + Worse Henderson = fewer RBI opportunities for Mattingly. If RBI were an expression of a player's ability, we should hold the shortfall against Mattingly despite his being better than the year before. That doesn't make much sense.

Stolen bases don't matter all that much.
Wade Boggs was a terrific leadoff hitter stealing two bases a year. Vince Coleman, a contemporary, was nearly useless stealing 100 a year. Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines would have been among the best players in baseball had they never stolen a base in their careers. Boggs, Henderson, and Raines all "manufactured" runs, to use a term favored by the conservatives, by finding ways to get to first base. Coleman couldn't get to first base at the Annual Cotillion for Semi-Inebriated Cheerleaders Who Are Really, Really Turned On By Ballplayers. Speed is value-added in a player, but not in and of itself a reason to put someone in the lineup (see Endy Chavez).

Then there's the home-run era that we've been living in more or less continuously since 1920. Say your team has a runner on first base in a game at Coors Field. Most often, there is really very little to be gained by having your runner attempt to move up one base, at the possible cost of a caught stealing, when the next hitter has every chance to hit the next pitch out of the ballpark.

If you're playing at Pac Bell, where everyone except Barry Bonds has trouble hitting for power, then the stolen base becomes more valuable--but that's what pinch-runners are for.

The main function of the batting order is to distribute plate appearances.
Over the course of a season, the leadoff hitter is going to bat more often than the number-two hitter, the number-two hitter is going to bat more often than the number-three hitter, and so on, and the leadoff hitter is going to bat a lot more often than the number-nine hitter. If you make Neifi Perez your everyday leadoff hitter, he is going to play more than any other player on your roster, including Barry Bonds. We leave the question as to whether that's a good idea or not up to you.

A strikeout is just another out.
Each batter is presented with fewer opportunities to advance a runner from second to third with a grounder than you might think. Each hitter gets fewer chances to hit a sac fly than it appears. There are, however, quite a lot of opportunities to hit into a double play. These things tend to come out in the wash. In any case, strikeouts correlate with power. That's your trade-off for home runs. Mickey Mantle used to regret the number of times he struck out, but he also said that if he hit like Pete Rose he would wear a dress. That's a pretty good summary of the trade-off inherent in cutting strikeouts.

Placing good bats on the right side of the defensive spectrum is one of the keys to winning.
It's that 'my shortstop is better than your shortstop' thing again. It's harder to find a good hitter that can play up the middle than it is, say, a right fielder. Take two teams at random, both run competently. Both are going to have right fielders and first basemen that are roughly comparable, but only one is going to have Derek Jeter at short. At the tail end of their championship run, the Yankees were getting relatively poor production from all four corners. They so outdistanced the competition at catcher, short, center field, and (sometimes) second base that they won anyway.

The 27 outs of a ballgame are precious. Managers should not give them away lightly.
Again, each ballgame has a life of exactly 27 outs. Bunting away outs is a bit like smoking cigarettes--you're hastening the end. The sacrifice bunt is a tactical tool. You deploy it when it's obvious that it will win you a ballgame. Some managers make a fetish of it, failing to recognize that even their worst hitter--Einar Diaz, say--has a 30% chance of reaching base, thus prolonging an inning long enough for a real hitter to come to the plate. When the bunt sign is on, that chance drops from 30 to zero.

A player's offensive and defensive contributions must be in balance.
Over the course of the season, your great defensive shortstop saves 10 more runs that the average shortstop would have missed but creates 15 fewer runs with the bat than that same average shortstop does. You're down five runs.

The odds are on the closer's side.
In most cases, the difference between the best and worst closers in terms of save percentage is quite small. That's because with only three outs to get, a closer has a tremendous advantage. Tony Gwynn comes to bat against Dickie Noles. Against the league, Tony is hitting .350. Against Dickie, he's a .450 hitter, which is to say that Dickie still gets him out 55% of the time. sums it up very well

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 12:39 PM
It has certain points that are universal, and certain points that are definitely the "American League" mindset and philosophy.

To value an out over a run is absolutely insane. A Run is far, far more valuable than an out. Because no matter how precious you value the outs, and no matter how careful you are to use them, you can still get shut out. Goose egg.

Just look at the White Sox this past season. They won the World Series manufacturing runs. Period, end of story. They did it all season long. The media labeled it "small ball" which is ridiculous, it's "baseball" they way the game was played, the way the game was invented, but has gone through fads since the 1920's and Babe Ruth.

They Won that World Series game against Houston by manufacturing one run......and in the ALCS everyone remembers that A.J. Pierzynski ran out that third strike, but, few remember Ozzie put in a pinch runner, who then stole second and then scored the game winner on a Crede line drive off the left field wall.

Could the pinch runner have scored from first? Maybe, but he definitely scored from second easily. And there is no predicting that Crede would get that hit.

Yes, you only have 27 outs, but, in baseball you can win games 1-0, or 2-1 or 3-2.
Using those twenty seven outs to manufacture ONE run, can win you the game. Manufacture one run at a time over 5 innings, and you have 5 runs.

Sitting back, playing the stats, and Moneyball, doesn't guarantee you anything, because hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports, and there is no way you can "just go get a hit". You just can't count on it.

You absolutely, in my, and alot of people's opinions HAVE to manufacture runs....and they're are a TON of ways to do it, it's just most people identify the manufacturing process with bunt's and stolen bases. Which is one dimensional, there's more to it......not to mention, I find it alot more exciting to watch.

After that 27th out, the only thing that counts is the score.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those of us who work with performance analysis tools know that we rule the stats, the stats don't rule us."
-----Westofyou.

If you say so......

westofyou
11-29-2005, 12:41 PM
"Those of us who work with performance analysis tools know that we rule the stats, the stats don't rule us."
-----Westofyou.

If you say so......Yep I do.

REDREAD
11-29-2005, 12:56 PM
Back to Lou.

I see no problem asking Lou if he is interested in the GM job and giving him an interview. I'm going to be optimistic and hope it is a sign that the new owners are willing to explore lots of potential candidates and pick their brains in the interview. Lou is a good judge of baseball talent. There's no disputing that. That is a skill DanO definitely doesn't have. If Lou were GM, I'm sure he'd need assistants to help him with the contract BS, so he wouldn't get screwed like LaSorda did in the Jeff Shaw trade (when Shaw forced LA to up his contract by threatening to demand a trade, something LaSorda didn't even realize was possible).

I think Lou is potentially a decent to great GM, if he has a competent staff to help him with the contractual BS. All GMs need a good staff and scouts to succeed. I think Lou has potentially a great advantage of getting more talent than he gives up, just because he knows talent when he sees it. Of course, no one is right 100% of the time, but I trust Lou's judgement.

Compare that to DanO, who's backround is pretty much a middle manager that leaned on his scouts. Sure, DanO pats himself on the back for picking Oswalt in the 20-something round of the draft, claiming he knew he was "special" :rolleyes: but IMO, DanO has done nothing to demonstrate that he knows talent even if it bit him in the butt. I fear getting another GM like him. Give me someone that knows talent. Someone that knows a reasonable risk to take when you have 4 million to throw at a veteran pitcher.

deltachi8
11-29-2005, 01:04 PM
Did you actually read moneyball? Do you understand what it's about?

And back to Lou...lets leave the past where it is. I'm sure he is a hell of a guy, but lets put some one with some forward thinking in charge of the operation for a change...

BRM
11-29-2005, 01:10 PM
Just look at the White Sox this past season. They won the World Series manufacturing runs. Period, end of story. They did it all season long. The media labeled it "small ball" which is ridiculous, it's "baseball" they way the game was played, the way the game was invented, but has gone through fads since the 1920's and Babe Ruth.


Without their dominant pitching and tremendous power they don't even reach the World Series. Manufacturing runs had nothing to do with it. They won with great pitching and the long ball.

flyer85
11-29-2005, 01:28 PM
Just look at the White Sox this past season. They won the World Series manufacturing runs. Period, end of story.... actually they did it with pitching, defense and HRs.

They were 10th in RS and 4th in HRs. If you watched the playoffs and WS, they won with pitching and those damned HRs.

14-2 - 5 HRs
5-4 - 1 HR but a 3 run HR in a 5 run inning. should have had him bunt.
5-3 - 1 HR, a run tiebreaking one.
2-3 - 1 HR
2-1 - 0 HR
5-2 - 1 HR - 1st inning 2 run shot. Manufactured early?
8-2 - 2 HR - 1st inning 3 run shot. Ditto
6-3 - 1 HR
5-3 - 2 HR
7-6 - 2 HR - a 7th inning GS to take the lead.
7-5 - 2 HR - a 2 run GW HR in the 14th.
1-0 - 0 HR

Sox hit 18 HRs in 12 post-season games. Their opponents managed 10.

The Sox counted all year on the longball for offense and it carried them in the playoffs.

The Sox were terrible at manufacturing runs. They were 11th in the AL with a .322 OBP and 12th in BA. Yet they were 4th in HRs and 7th in slugging.

The Sox stats were backward for a team that "manufactures runs".

What the Sox played was powerball.

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 02:17 PM
Yes, I have read Moneyball, and it is fundamentally flawed. But, it is a trend, an unconventional theory (and I agree MLB could use some of that) that is already on it's way out.

And, once again, and believe me, I watched pretty much the enitre White Sox season (about 100+ games), you absolutely do NOT get "great pitching" without "great fielding".

And the Sox, among other teams, have excellent, excellent defense. And it's not the what, it's the when..........

Juan Uribe is absolutely incredible at the back-hand in the hole strong throw to first, and stopped many runs from scoring through out the playoffs. The stats will give credit to the pitcher, but, anybody who knows baseball knows that pitching and defense go hand and hand.

---------------------

And by the way, hindsight is 20/20. In spring training, this "great pitching" you guys are drooling over had the White Sox projected to finish 4th in the division.
Most "experts" pegged half the rotation as washed up.

Do you guys really believe that there are these great pitchers out there who never have balls put in play?!?
They just go out there and average 27 strikeouts a game?

Every pitcher gets hit! Success is a combination of mixing speeds, keeping the hitters off balance and guessing, and the control to make the batter hit it into the defensive alignment.

The more skill and range the defenders have the more successful the pitcher will be.

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 02:21 PM
"The Sox counted all year on the longball for offense and it carried them in the playoffs."
------Richard Cabesa

Your entitled to your opinion, but, in this case, you are entitled to be wrong.

They never relied on the long ball.

And I like I said, living in Chicago and being a Reds fan, I watch pretty much the entire White Sox season, and Ozzie absolutely does NOT play for the long ball.

His philosophy and strategy is about as old school baseball as you are going to find anywhere in MLB.

You can look up all the stats you want, but I watched the season, I was there opening day, went about 20 other times, and watched a 100+ on TV, and most of those HR's were fluke.

The winds at the Cell can get up to 20-25 mph, and blowing out the majority of the time.
HR's happen, you have powerful hitters and sometimes they hit the sweet spot, but, if you actually followed the team (and didn't just look up the numbers on ESPN splits) you would know that they majority of the HR's were not hit very well, and even the players would be quoted "I was surprised it went out".

They do not play for the long ball. And they would be the first to tell you that.

flyer85
11-29-2005, 02:26 PM
Yes, I have read Moneyball, and it is fundamentally flawed. ... well then you read it but didn't understand it. The main point of Moneyball is bringing to baseball new ways of analyzing investment opportunities. It applies to any market, not just baseball and the undelying theory(looking for value in ways and places where others are not) is nothing profound. It is something that has been going on in investment markets for a long time. Those that can find ways to separate the noise from the real data are a couple of steps ahead of the competition.

flyer85
11-29-2005, 02:27 PM
They never relied on the long ball.... and of course there is no evidence to back it up, other than anecdotal.

"In God we trust, all others must have data"

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 02:30 PM
Doesn't work in baseball, in about 3 years all the laptop statistical guru's will pretty much be out of the GM role entirely.

You can predict a stock to some accuracy, you can NOT predict a ballplayer.

Wasn't that Billy Beane's point? The intangibles?

I am not saying the old way works, I don't think it does, but neither does statistical analysis.

Though, I do hope it leaves a prevailing residue that you have to look outside the box in drafting a potential ball player.

SteelSD
11-29-2005, 02:37 PM
Those that can find ways to separate the noise from the real data are a couple of steps ahead of the competition.

Speaking of "noise", does anyone know why Milezinni is hijacking another thread???

paintmered
11-29-2005, 02:40 PM
Nevermind, Steel beat me to it.

Get this thread back on topic or it's getting closed.

Blimpie
11-29-2005, 02:45 PM
Good thing the White Sox traded for Jim Thome this week. Now they can get more "run manufacturing" from their 1B/DH position and stay away from those nasty home runs.

flyer85
11-29-2005, 02:56 PM
Speaking of "noise", does anyone know why Milezinni is hijacking another thread???just so he can bury his head and in the sand and claim it is impossible to filter noise from baseball data. Of course, every other field that uses and analyzes data have found ways to do it.

flyer85
11-29-2005, 02:57 PM
Good thing the White Sox traded for Jim Thome this week. Now they can get more "run manufacturing" from their 1B/DH position and stay away from those nasty home runs. they are going to flip him for Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo.

flyer85
11-29-2005, 02:58 PM
Wasn't that Billy Beane's point? The intangibles? obviously you did not read the book. Must have just looked at the pictures.

westofyou
11-29-2005, 03:03 PM
200 Flukes is quite the achievement, good for 4th in the league.

As for "small ball" 67 Caught Steals to 53 Sacs is pretty unimpressive. Jay Bell had 39 Sacs himself in 1990, that's what I would call "small ball."

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 03:04 PM
200 Flukes is quite the achievement, good for 4th in the league.

85 of those flukes came on the road.

flyer85
11-29-2005, 03:11 PM
85 of those flukes came on the road.imagine how many they might have hit if they had tried.:mooner:

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 04:47 PM
I do.

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 04:55 PM
obviously you did not read the book. Must have just looked at the pictures.

Uhmmm, yeah.

Billy Beane's whole philosophy towards evaluating talent came from his own personal exp.

"We're not selling jeans here"

Scouts "looked" at him and thought he was a can't miss prospect. "Looked" like a Major Leaguer.
Managed to hang around the majors on the "hype" but ultimately felt he didn't have "it" to be a major leaguer.

And never really developed into one.

Being Lenny Dykstra's roomate, he felt that he could better define what that "it" was (quote the "intangibles") that would make a good major league ball player, because he felt he saw what "it" was in Dykstra.

And felt he could see it better than the current scouting system in MLB. So in spring training one day he walks into the FO and decides to become a amateur scout.

Then Alderson took him under his wing, so to speak.

Then he meets DePodesta, who loves Bill James, and yada, yada, yada.....

And so goes......

And on, and on, but I am starting to realize who didn't read the book, or at least, didn't get it......

flyer85
11-29-2005, 05:19 PM
And on, and on, but I am starting to realize who didn't read the book, or at least, didn't get it......someone read the story, and it was a good story, but entirely missed the underlying themes of the book. The scouting vs stats argument is just a euphemism, a much broader issue(not common to only baseball) is the real story hidden in Moneyball.

The real issues are twofold .

1) how does one go about changing a conservative culture that is extremely resistant to change and, God forbid, bring in news methods of looking at and analyzing old problems. Problems that the conservative establishment claims are intractable through means of objective analysis. The establishment claims that anecdotal eveidence offered by experienced observers is by far the best way to find undervalued commodities.


2) How to bring in and develop the objective data analysis and apply in such a way to filter the noise and in so doing provide proprietary information. Then put the data analysis into practice and quantify the results and while doing so transform the culture from a complete reliance on the subjective and instead creating a synthesis of the objective(that can be empirically verified) with the subjective(that can be demonstated successful)..

MWM
11-29-2005, 05:24 PM
BTW, DePodesta didn't introduce Beane to Bill James. That happened long before DePo came around. Try reading the book instead of a review or summary.

M2
11-29-2005, 05:25 PM
BTW, DePodesta didn't introduce Beane to Bill James. That happened long before DePo came around. Try reading the book instead of a review or summary.

IIRC, it was Sandy Alderson who made the formal introduction wasn't it?

ochre
11-29-2005, 05:34 PM
and for the record, the White Sox manufactured 79 fewer runs than the Reds this season without the benefit of the Pitcher regularly batting.

Of course the Reds allowed their opponents to score 244 more runs than the White Sox allowed.

Obviously the difference is the fact that the White Sox O did the little things.

Red Leader
11-29-2005, 05:52 PM
and for the record, the White Sox manufactured 79 fewer runs than the Reds this season without the benefit of the Pitcher regularly batting.

Of course the Reds allowed their opponents to score 244 more runs than the White Sox allowed.

Obviously the difference is the fact that the White Sox O did the little things.

No, see, the White Sox and the Reds had about the same caliber pitching staffs, its just that the White Sox played good defensively, and the Reds didn't. That's where the 244 more runs came in. Stupid defense. ;)

westofyou
11-29-2005, 06:00 PM
and for the record, the White Sox manufactured 79 fewer runs than the Reds this season without the benefit of the Pitcher regularly batting.
16% of the WS runs were on solo HR's 14.8% of the Reds were.

BTW

Larry Macphail was "moneyball" back in 1934, Howsam made a "moneyball" pick when he drafted Driessen, so the fretting about it coming here is a waste of time, it's been and gone.

RedsManRick
11-29-2005, 06:36 PM
There's a difference between relying on the longball and planning on the longball. The Sox did not plan on the long ball. They did not sit back and wait for 3 run homers. But guess what? If they hadn't hit those 3 run homers, and hit quite a few of them, there's no way they would've been in the playoffs, let alone win the World Series. That is to say, the relied on the long ball to win, even if they didn't plan on getting them.

The implicit point that is rarely stated is this. "Small ball" can win you a game. OBP & Power win you divisions. Speed, sacrificed, and the like are important because they allow to take advantage of certain situations when a single run can mean the difference between a win and a loss. However, in the general, such strategies lead to fewer runs per game, which translates in to fewer wins. People don't talk about small ball failing when a team loses 5-2 and bunted a guy over in the 2nd inning.

I also watched about 30 Sox games this year. I can remember a number of games where they played for a single run early on, only to go down 4-1 in the middle innings. Low and behold, Konerko would come up and hit a 3 run homer in the 6th. They'd scrap accross another run in the 8th, win 5-4 and everybody remembers the wonderful triumph of "smart ball". Without the homer, they wouldn't have even been close.

A real "smart ball" offense is like the Red Sox 2004 playoff offense. Play for the big inning to maximize efficiecny, but have the skill sets available to maximize your chance to score a single run when that run is the difference maker.

M2
11-29-2005, 10:32 PM
Good points RMR. One important thing to remember about the ChiSox too is that 43% of their steals came from Scott Podsednik. Without him the go-go gets taken right out of that club.

Heath
11-29-2005, 10:45 PM
I'm waiting for Moneyball to come out in Cliff Notes, Action Comics, or color-by-numbers. Obviously to some posters, thats our reading level.

:bang:

Milezinni
11-30-2005, 11:22 AM
BTW, DePodesta didn't introduce Beane to Bill James. That happened long before DePo came around. Try reading the book instead of a review or summary.

?!?

You could start by reading my post. I never said that, claim that, or even try to imply that DePodesta introduced Beane to James.

Milezinni
11-30-2005, 11:24 AM
There's a difference between relying on the longball and planning on the longball. The Sox did not plan on the long ball. They did not sit back and wait for 3 run homers. But guess what? If they hadn't hit those 3 run homers, and hit quite a few of them, there's no way they would've been in the playoffs, let alone win the World Series. That is to say, the relied on the long ball to win, even if they didn't plan on getting them.

The implicit point that is rarely stated is this. "Small ball" can win you a game. OBP & Power win you divisions. Speed, sacrificed, and the like are important because they allow to take advantage of certain situations when a single run can mean the difference between a win and a loss. However, in the general, such strategies lead to fewer runs per game, which translates in to fewer wins. People don't talk about small ball failing when a team loses 5-2 and bunted a guy over in the 2nd inning.

I also watched about 30 Sox games this year. I can remember a number of games where they played for a single run early on, only to go down 4-1 in the middle innings. Low and behold, Konerko would come up and hit a 3 run homer in the 6th. They'd scrap accross another run in the 8th, win 5-4 and everybody remembers the wonderful triumph of "smart ball". Without the homer, they wouldn't have even been close.

A real "smart ball" offense is like the Red Sox 2004 playoff offense. Play for the big inning to maximize efficiecny, but have the skill sets available to maximize your chance to score a single run when that run is the difference maker.

That is a common axiom in baseball management 101.

Manufacture early and late in games, play for the big inning in the middle.

ochre
11-30-2005, 11:25 AM
?!?

You could start by reading my post. I never said that, claim that, or even try to imply that DePodesta introduced Beane to James.

Then he meets DePodesta, who loves Bill James, and yada, yada, yada.....
Implied: DePodesta "introduced" Beane to James.

Milezinni
11-30-2005, 11:28 AM
How does that imply anything?

Are you trying to claim that DePodesta doesn't love Bill James?

ochre
11-30-2005, 11:31 AM
How does that imply anything?

Are you trying to claim that DePodesta doesn't love Bill James?
that implies a sequence of events. It implies that he met DePodesta and learned of James through DePodesta's love of James.

Stop beating your drum. This thread is about the Reds front office, not the A's.

westofyou
11-30-2005, 11:32 AM
Then Alderson took him under his wing, so to speak.

Then he meets DePodesta, who loves Bill James, and yada, yada, yada.....
Hired him as a scout and gave him a stack Jame's Baseball Abstracts.


When Alderson entered the game he wanted to wrap his mind around it, and he did. He concluded that everything from on-field strategies was better conducted by scientific investigation-hypotheseses tested by anaylsis of historical statistical baseball data.

Moneyball page 56Yep, that sort of stuff will be gone from the game in a couple of years from what I hear.