PDA

View Full Version : Reading between the lines



RFS62
02-02-2006, 09:08 AM
For all those who are hoping for a Theo-Depo type GM, I believe you're going to be disappointed.

Castellini noted in his first few comments to the press that he's aware of sabermetrics, and he's giving consideration to Kullman for the job. But I would be very surprised if the balance doesn't tip heavily towards scouting and player development in his choice as GM.

Hopefully, Kullman will stay on and play a big part in voicing the sabermetric point of view, similar to DePo in Oakland. But I just don't see it as the central focus of the new organizational philosophy, based on the guys being interviewed for the job.

My money is on Wren right now, with Krivsky running second.

lollipopcurve
02-02-2006, 09:24 AM
Castellini noted that they "budgeted for" sabermetrics. This tells me that they will have/hire people who crank numbers on players. To my way of thinking, that's appropriate. The skill set and knowledge base for a GM requires a genuine appreciation for, and layman's understanding of, advanced statistical tools, but that's only one piece of what a GM needs. I think it's a mistake to think a good GM must also be a guy who could crank those numbers himself.

RFS62
02-02-2006, 10:04 AM
Castellini noted that they "budgeted for" sabermetrics. This tells me that they will have/hire people who crank numbers on players. To my way of thinking, that's appropriate. The skill set and knowledge base for a GM requires a genuine appreciation for, and layman's understanding of, advanced statistical tools, but that's only one piece of what a GM needs. I think it's a mistake to think a good GM must also be a guy who could crank those numbers himself.



Yeah, this is how I feel too. The GM has to understand the conclusions, but not necessarily be able to do a regression analysis.

lollipopcurve
02-02-2006, 10:23 AM
The GM has to understand the conclusions, but not necessarily be able to do a regression analysis.

Exactly.

M2
02-02-2006, 10:41 AM
IMO, what you're really looking for in a GM is good philosophy and analytical skills. Numbers can be part of that, but I agree that they're not the whole shebang.

You want a GM who can lay out a strategic vision and then tick off the tactical steps that get you there. You want a GM who can quickly assess not only his own organization, but other organizations as well. Quick assessment is a big part of what croaked DanO. He couldn't figure what he had and he seemed oblivious to what anyone else might need.

The media tries to make a lot of hay out of the A's approach vs. the Braves approach, but, IMO, Billy Beane and John Schuerholz are two peas in a pod. What they share is the uncanny ability to know what their teams need and then get it in a competitive marketplace. Attempts at pigeon-holing them only sell them short. Beane pays a lot of attention to tools. Schuerholz puts a ton of stock in performance. That's what the Reds need -- someone ready to use every club in the bag.

Red Heeler
02-02-2006, 11:24 AM
An ideal general manager should be well versed in both traditional and numerical scouting. By relying too heavily on one or the other, too much opportunity is left on the table.

For international and American high school scouting, for example, numbers based scouting is largely useless due to the inconsistent level of competition and the rawness of the players. Basically, you want someone who can sift through the sand and find some shiny nuggets.

Once you get to the college and professional levels, performance based scouting is very valuable in helping determine the gold from pyrite.

RFS62
02-02-2006, 12:13 PM
The issue, it seems to me, is the amount of time it takes to learn one or the other method.

Traditional scouting and player analysis takes years of experience. Sure there are exceptions, but most great scouts spent years hanging around batting cages all over the country.

Once you make the decision to buy in to sabermetrics, you can learn what you need to know much faster. And what you don't know, you can get from a trusted source.

I prefer a guy who has been around the block and seen first hand how successful organizations operate, and has an open mind to sabermetrics.

NewEraReds
02-02-2006, 12:22 PM
as long as it isnt a guy like arbuckle or beattie and i wont be mad. may not be happy, but i wont be mad ;)

rdiersin
02-02-2006, 12:22 PM
The issue, it seems to me, is the amount of time it takes to learn one or the other method.

Traditional scouting and player analysis takes years of experience. Sure there are exceptions, but most great scouts spent years hanging around batting cages all over the country.

Once you make the decision to buy in to sabermetrics, you can learn what you need to know much faster. And what you don't know, you can get from a trusted source.

I prefer a guy who has been around the block and seen first hand how successful organizations operate, and has an open mind to sabermetrics.

But why is it neccessary for the gm to be from the traditional scouting school? The GM doesn't have to know everything. He has to know how to manage, make good hires, and institute his philosophy on the organization. A good GM may know little about the details of scouting and player development, but knows who to hire that does. It just seems that you are saying that the GM must know one thing, but just have a general idea of another.

SunDeck
02-02-2006, 12:24 PM
Hanging around batting cages does one thing that knowing the numbers does not- it puts you in touch with the people you have to work with in building a club, other scouts, players, gms, etc. You have to be able to master the political and soft skills to be a good gm...and I'll agree that you have to have a healthy understanding of how the metrics fit into the big picture.

RFS62
02-02-2006, 12:24 PM
It just seem that you are saying that the GM must know one thing, but just have a general idea of another.


No, I want the new GM to understand sabermetrics and give statistical analysis a healthy weight in his decision making process. I'm talking about how long it takes to learn one or the other.

RFS62
02-02-2006, 12:28 PM
IMO, what you're really looking for in a GM is good philosophy and analytical skills. Numbers can be part of that, but I agree that they're not the whole shebang.

You want a GM who can lay out a strategic vision and then tick off the tactical steps that get you there. You want a GM who can quickly assess not only his own organization, but other organizations as well. Quick assessment is a big part of what croaked DanO. He couldn't figure what he had and he seemed oblivious to what anyone else might need.

The media tries to make a lot of hay out of the A's approach vs. the Braves approach, but, IMO, Billy Beane and John Schuerholz are two peas in a pod. What they share is the uncanny ability to know what their teams need and then get it in a competitive marketplace. Attempts at pigeon-holing them only sell them short. Beane pays a lot of attention to tools. Schuerholz puts a ton of stock in performance. That's what the Reds need -- someone ready to use every club in the bag.



Well said.

Red Heeler
02-02-2006, 12:29 PM
The issue, it seems to me, is the amount of time it takes to learn one or the other method.

Traditional scouting and player analysis takes years of experience. Sure there are exceptions, but most great scouts spent years hanging around batting cages all over the country.

Once you make the decision to buy in to sabermetrics, you can learn what you need to know much faster. And what you don't know, you can get from a trusted source.

I prefer a guy who has been around the block and seen first hand how successful organizations operate, and has an open mind to sabermetrics.

A GM doesn't have to be a star scout. A GM needs to put people into roles which suit their skills and then be willing to listen to them.

I want a guy like Almarez, who is a fine judge of raw talent by most accounts, running my international scouting department. I want a guy like Kuhlman who is more performance based running my college and pro scouting or as minor league director. I want a GM who can take the information that those men provide and develop a strategic plan from it.

The little bit we have had access to from the potential candidates leads me to believe that the guy from St. Louis whose name I won't try to spell might be that kind of GM.

NewEraReds
02-02-2006, 12:31 PM
A GM doesn't have to be a star scout. A GM needs to put people into roles which suit their skills and then be willing to listen to them.

I want a guy like Almarez, who is a fine judge of raw talent by most accounts, running my international scouting department. I want a guy like Kuhlman who is more performance based running my college and pro scouting or as minor league director. I want a GM who can take the information that those men provide and develop a strategic plan from it.

The little bit we have had access to from the potential candidates leads me to believe that the guy from St. Louis whose name I won't try to spell might be that kind of GM.
exactly. the guys who work for you will do most the scouting, etc. when your the gm, you have to hire the right guys for that then know how to listen to them and implement the right things from each guy

RFS62
02-02-2006, 12:35 PM
A GM doesn't have to be a star scout. A GM needs to put people into roles which suit their skills and then be willing to listen to them.

I want a guy like Almarez, who is a fine judge of raw talent by most accounts, running my international scouting department. I want a guy like Kuhlman who is more performance based running my college and pro scouting or as minor league director. I want a GM who can take the information that those men provide and develop a strategic plan from it.

The little bit we have had access to from the potential candidates leads me to believe that the guy from St. Louis whose name I won't try to spell might be that kind of GM.



I don't expect him to do the scouting once he's running the show. I do like it if he has enough of a scouting background to understand what he's being told, and to sort through the BS and unfounded opinions.

Good managers ofter work their way through the ranks and have a participants understanding of the people they manage.

Yes, you delegate all these things when you're the top dog. But understanding how scouts and player development guys form their opinions is very valuable.

SunDeck
02-02-2006, 12:36 PM
Beane pays a lot of attention to tools. Schuerholz puts a ton of stock in performance. That's what the Reds need -- someone ready to use every club in the bag.

Just as long as the guy isn't using the putter from a fairway bunker.

rdiersin
02-02-2006, 12:36 PM
No, I want the new GM to understand sabermetrics and give statistical analysis a healthy weight in his decision making process. I'm talking about how long it takes to learn one or the other.

No offense, but I guess I just don't buy that. Yes, it would take a long time to become an expert in player development and scouting, I agree with that. But, it also takes quite a bit of time to become an expert in statistical and probabilistic methods as well. But I guess my point is, that a GM doesn't have to be an expert. A GM has to know what he needs to know of these areas and hire good experts to help develop and implement his philosophies. Just MO.

M2
02-02-2006, 01:40 PM
No offense, but I guess I just don't buy that. Yes, it would take a long time to become an expert in player development and scouting, I agree with that. But, it also takes quite a bit of time to become an expert in statistical and probabilistic methods as well. But I guess my point is, that a GM doesn't have to be an expert. A GM has to know what he needs to know of these areas and hire good experts to help develop and implement his philosophies. Just MO.

I think it goes beyond that. A GM has to be well-versed in a number of areas in order to hire good people. It's easy to get BSed when you don't know any better.

A GM also needs to do more than solicit opinions. First off, the answers you get will depend in no small part on the quality of the questions you ask. So a GM needs to ask good questions. The GM also needs to bring some acumen into the decision-making process. I remember when JimBo sometimes held votes on potential moves and tended to go with the majority decision. That's sweet, but say your advisors are 7-2 in favor if doing the wrong thing? The GM should be someone capable of forming an independent opinion.

Also, a GM needs to lead. Truly great out-of-the-box ideas aren't going to strike someone for whom the box is a cavernous mystery. Initiative is a product of knowledge, or at least the quest for it. Expertise is a tricky commodity in baseball. Not a lot of people can claim it for a lifetime That said, a GM should have definitive strengths in stats-based and eyeball scouting. Without that communication and leadership will prove difficult tasks.

rdiersin
02-02-2006, 02:21 PM
I think it goes beyond that. A GM has to be well-versed in a number of areas in order to hire good people. It's easy to get BSed when you don't know any better.

A GM also needs to do more than solicit opinions. First off, the answers you get will depend in no small part on the quality of the questions you ask. So a GM needs to ask good questions. The GM also needs to bring some acumen into the decision-making process. I remember when JimBo sometimes held votes on potential moves and tended to go with the majority decision. That's sweet, but say your advisors are 7-2 in favor if doing the wrong thing? The GM should be someone capable of forming an independent opinion.

Also, a GM needs to lead. Truly great out-of-the-box ideas aren't going to strike someone for whom the box is a cavernous mystery. Initiative is a product of knowledge, or at least the quest for it. Expertise is a tricky commodity in baseball. Not a lot of people can claim it for a lifetime That said, a GM should have definitive strengths in stats-based and eyeball scouting. Without that communication and leadership will prove difficult tasks.

Yea, I think that pretty much sums it up M2. My main point, and maybe this didn't come across as well as I would have liked, was just that I don't think it matters where the person comes from, but rather that they have good creative ideas, a good overall knowledge so that they can ask the right questions, and the ability to hire the people that will refine and implement those ideas. I am just not sure that the way to the good overall knowledge has to be from a scouting position first and then learning the aspects of statistical analysis. This would leave out quality guys like Depodesta and Epstein. There's more than one way to skin a cat. And if that's not what you meant RFS, then I appologize.

flyer85
02-02-2006, 05:01 PM
IMO, what you're really looking for in a GM is good philosophy and analytical skills. Numbers can be part of that, but I agree that they're not the whole shebang.

You want a GM who can lay out a strategic vision and then tick off the tactical steps that get you there. You want a GM who can quickly assess not only his own organization, but other organizations as well. Quick assessment is a big part of what croaked DanO. He couldn't figure what he had and he seemed oblivious to what anyone else might need.

The media tries to make a lot of hay out of the A's approach vs. the Braves approach, but, IMO, Billy Beane and John Schuerholz are two peas in a pod. What they share is the uncanny ability to know what their teams need and then get it in a competitive marketplace. Attempts at pigeon-holing them only sell them short. Beane pays a lot of attention to tools. Schuerholz puts a ton of stock in performance. That's what the Reds need -- someone ready to use every club in the bag.
excellent layout of the baseball knowledge and analytical skills needed to be a successful GM. Add in some organizational and management skills and you have a solid hire. There are a number of people that would fit the profile and also a bunch that don't.

It's as simple as find the right person, give them the resources and then let them do their job. It what the Uncle Carl regime could never do. He hired a bean counter(John Allen) to run a baseball operation and then couldn't help but meddle(Larkin contract, hiring DanO when Allen recomended Krivsky). The former Reds regime was dysfunctional from to bottom.

D-Man
02-02-2006, 07:22 PM
IMO, what you're really looking for in a GM is good philosophy and analytical skills. Numbers can be part of that, but I agree that they're not the whole shebang. . . .

The media tries to make a lot of hay out of the A's approach vs. the Braves approach, but, IMO, Billy Beane and John Schuerholz are two peas in a pod.

I think a highly underrated GM skill, one that you indirectly cite above, is the ability to negotiate with your peers and relentlessly pursue those assets that are needed to make your team successful. Both Beane and Schuerholtz have that in spades, and I think that may be the key downside to a guy like DePodesta. He may be a genius, but unless he can consistenly acquire *the guy he wants* for what he is willing to give up, Paul will never be a Beane.

Moreover, I think it is interesting that neither Beane nor Schulerholtz developed a Bowden-like reputation in GM circles as a rip-off artist (e.g., the negative pub Bowden got after the Jeff Shaw deal with Lasorda). From my experiences in negotiating, these short-term wins have a negative long-term consequence: nobody wants to deal with you because they don't trust you or they fear you will be ripping them off.

My ideal GM would be what Jim Collins calls a Level 5 Leader:
*one who understands and uses the numbers to "confront the brutal facts."
*one who does one thing exceptionally well. This is called the "hedgehog concept": Beane's is quantifying value, Schuerholtz's is scouting and developing HS arms.
*one who has a "stoic, resolve toward life." This creates a culture of discipline among his colleagues.

M2 is right in that both Schuerholtz and Beane have all three of these qualities (in differing quantities, of course).

RFS62
02-02-2006, 07:37 PM
DePo was unbelievably naive in the politics of the job.

Cyclone792
02-02-2006, 08:57 PM
DePo was unbelievably naive in the politics of the job.

In LA at least he most likely was. If given another shot, I think he'll have learned a bit on how to/not to handle the job. One factor that may also have played into is there were reports that the LA front office had a serious rift between the DePo side and the other side. I'm not sure how many allies he had or how many guys in that front office were sort of "hybrids" in LA, but it always helps if there's some front office assistants that understand both ends of the spectrum (saber and scouting) and are able to effectively join both groups together. If DePo can't do it, he better have some assistants working for him who can.

SteelSD
02-02-2006, 10:18 PM
The extent of DePo's naivete was his underestimation of the lunacy running rampant in that particular asylum.

Guy was a winner who came to a team desperate for a winner and brought them a winner. His fault was that he didn't win "the Dodger way". At one time that phrase may have meant something other than hubris-driven job perpetuation and great tasting spaghetti.

The greatest politician in the world still can't herd a rabid pack of feral cats who're dead set on killing their sustinance provider rather than eat the wrong brand of healthy cat food.

The great irony is that it actually was the lack of "character" that got DePo axed. But it wasn't his. Nor was it that of the players he acquired.

Slap a 'Milo' on the Dodgers and move along.

Red Heeler
02-02-2006, 10:35 PM
Steel,
I agree with you about the Dodgers being a dysfunctional mess that DePo never had a chance of managing. On the other hand, I'm not sold on him being a sure fire great GM (though I wouldn't mind one bit if the Reds gave him the chance to prove it).

I tend to think of it like my own profession. Medicine is based on statistical research. To be an effective clinical veterinarian, I have to have enough working knowledge of statistics to be able to interpret and evaluate a research article. I do not have to know how to "crunch the numbers" myself, though. In fact, most of the really good researchers I know are not very adept at clinical medicine because they lack the observational and personal skills of the good clinicians.

SteelSD
02-02-2006, 10:48 PM
Steel,
I agree with you about the Dodgers being a dysfunctional mess that DePo never had a chance of managing. On the other hand, I'm not sold on him being a sure fire great GM (though I wouldn't mind one bit if the Reds gave him the chance to prove it).

Give him the freedom to do what he needs to without having to worry about who's going to be stabbing him in the back next and he's a "can't miss" guy, IMO.


I tend to think of it like my own profession. Medicine is based on statistical research. To be an effective clinical veterinarian, I have to have enough working knowledge of statistics to be able to interpret and evaluate a research article. I do not have to know how to "crunch the numbers" myself, though. In fact, most of the really good researchers I know are not very adept at clinical medicine because they lack the observational and personal skills of the good clinicians.

Oh, you are of course correct on the need for a good "bedside manor". That being said, there's nothing much the best doctor can do with an abusive drunk who's calling you profane names and walks out of the emergency room after refusing treatment with the hatchet still stuck in his skull.

That's the Dodgers in a nutshell. And to compound matters, the drunk had 20 moronic bystanders cheering him on.

Nugget
02-02-2006, 11:41 PM
I don't think you can blame the Dodger organisation for what happened to DePo. He shook them up when he first came in and they lived with that. His big wave trades were made the year before last and he was given pretty much free reign and money last year to bring in players. Some were hurt but then being good GM means that you have a roster or be able to make a roster that is adequate to be able to cater for injuries. The Dodgers were bad last year in a bad division and this was after the new owner opened his chequebook. I think the fact that they were third in a division where the winner went 82-80 was more of a factor to him losing his job than anything.

SteelSD
02-03-2006, 12:35 AM
I don't think you can blame the Dodger organisation for what happened to DePo. He shook them up when he first came in and they lived with that.

That's a myth. DePo walked in as a lamb to a slaughter when he joined the Dodgers organization. Praised the current folks who were there to the media. Promised no quick-think massive changes among the scouting and developmental staff. Said all the right things. Brought in good players. Drafted (shhh...) a High School pitcher in round one of the 2004 Draft. That wasn't some bull rush by DePo in which he joined up, came in and started leveling the place. He did everything right. Said everything he was supposed to say. Trusted people to respect his restraint. And that last item was his downfall.

Guy was the proverbial frog who wanted to give the scorpion a ride across the pond. And he did it. His mistake was not understanding the nature of the scorpion.


His big wave trades were made the year before last and he was given pretty much free reign and money last year to bring in players.

Again, that's a myth. McCourt made DePo cut payroll. Any money he spent before last season was only there because DePo himself moved enough salary to make it available. And that salary exchange resulted in FAR more efficient and effective resource utilization.


Some were hurt but then being good GM means that you have a roster or be able to make a roster that is adequate to be able to cater for injuries. The Dodgers were bad last year in a bad division and this was after the new owner opened his chequebook. I think the fact that they were third in a division where the winner went 82-80 was more of a factor to him losing his job than anything.

Again, the new owner did NOT "open his checkbook".

Secondly, there isn't a GM on the planet- past, present, or future- who could put together a roster that would adequately weather that kind of massive injury storm. To do so would mean that you'd need to have a 40-man roster that included 2x quality MLB starting players at virtually every position. Can't be done. Not when injuries hit at that level.

Third, the guy took over a mediocre roster littered with overpaid players the year prior and through heady moves not only cut payroll as instructed but actually produced a better team than he was originally handed. Won a division title with it. It was the first full-season division title won by the Dodgers since 1988. And he got fired because the Dodgers didn't perform?

It appears you don't really understand the situation with either the Dodgers or DePodesta. This wasn't a case of "arrogant young stathead walks into team an riles everyone up while failing miserably at his job". This was a case of a guy who was asked to succeed despite challenges, did succeed, but was still consistently lambasted by a clueless, elitist, sensationalist media and got canned for having the audacity to do a good job that folks wouldn't accept regardless of how well he did it.

Cooper
02-03-2006, 08:18 AM
Dodger owner dint get behind Depo. He had no support. No one would have suceeded. He did a better job last year then year one....if you break it down that becomes clear.

lollipopcurve
02-03-2006, 08:33 AM
From my experiences in negotiating, these short-term wins have a negative long-term consequence: nobody wants to deal with you because they don't trust you or they fear you will be ripping them off.

Agree wholeheartedly. You need a guy who can close deals, and that often requires pursuing a trade that works for both teams, that exchanges value for value.

IslandRed
02-03-2006, 02:40 PM
For DePodesta to succeed somewhere, he'll need ownership that supports him fully, something he obviously didn't get in L.A. Initially, he seemed just what McCourt needed -- someone who could get results while cutting the payroll, necessary because of all the money McCourt borrowed to buy the team. But McCourt was, alas, just another guy in it for the image boost. If everything about your franchise is PR, then simply being a whipping boy in the media is enough to get a GM fired, whether or not the whipping was deserved.

There's one other thing DePodesta will need. Overcoming the ingrained resistance within baseball to Full Moneyball requires a lot of internal educating and, if necessary, force. Both Sandy Alderson (ex-Marine) and Billy Beane (ex-major leaguer who can throw temper tantrums with the best) were able to bend the A's to their will. DePodesta didn't, or couldn't, in L.A. That's something HE must do in his next job. You can't lead if no one's following.

M2
02-03-2006, 05:23 PM
There's one other thing DePodesta will need. Overcoming the ingrained resistance within baseball to Full Moneyball requires a lot of internal educating and, if necessary, force. Both Sandy Alderson (ex-Marine) and Billy Beane (ex-major leaguer who can throw temper tantrums with the best) were able to bend the A's to their will. DePodesta didn't, or couldn't, in L.A. That's something HE must do in his next job. You can't lead if no one's following.

I think one of the overlooked strengths of Beane is that very few people want him pissed off and near them. A little bit of intimidaton isn't a bad thing. There's a type of guy that falls in line when an alpha male walks into the room or at the very least they need to see that you won't take much guff from them.

He's a convincer.

Johnny Footstool
02-03-2006, 05:36 PM
DePodesta's biggest (and possibly only) problem was that Tommy Lasorda didn't like him. I don't know why -- maybe he was watching "Fletch" on DVD and laughing a little too hard at the "I hate Tommy Lasorda" part. But for whatever reason, he was never given a chance. His success was ignored, and his failures were amplified.

Saying he "wasn't good at office politics" is just a politically correct way to say he wouldn't kiss up to Lasorda.

IslandRed
02-03-2006, 05:54 PM
DePodesta's biggest (and possibly only) problem was that Tommy Lasorda didn't like him. I don't know why -- maybe he was watching "Fletch" on DVD and laughing a little too hard at the "I hate Tommy Lasorda" part. But for whatever reason, he was never given a chance. His success was ignored, and his failures were amplified.

Saying he "wasn't good at office politics" is just a politically correct way to say he wouldn't kiss up to Lasorda.

He didn't kiss up to Lasorda, but he didn't cut out the cancer, either. I can't help thinking that if it had been Beane as GM, Lasorda would have been thrown out of the front office in short order -- and maybe not metaphorically -- forcing ownership to resolve the power struggle sooner rather than later.

Jpup
02-04-2006, 01:42 AM
Is it a fact that DePodesta hasn't been contacted by the Reds? I don't think we know that for sure. I would think that it is highly unlikely, but still possible and I could see DePodesta as the type that would want to keep it quite if he wasn't interested.

I still think that Beattie will be the next Reds GM.

As far as DePo and LA, he had no chance to succeed. He was wanted out before he even started. They have the guy they wanted all along, if not in person, in type.

nyjwagner
02-04-2006, 09:22 AM
DePo was unbelievably naive in the politics of the job.

Depo was not naive, he was clueless. Though he was a brilliant statistician he was a terrible communicator. TERRIBLE. No one around him had any idea what was going on, be it his employer, his asst., the media, the people he was trying to trade with...Where O'Brien couldnt stomach pulling the trigger, Depo couldnt stomach answering his phone. Team isnt limited to the field, it occurs within the front office too. You have to build consenus, and be able to make your case within the organization to keep everyone on board and moving in the same direction. Depodesta was incapable of that.

Everyteam should have a number cruncher, the Reds have a few, but numbers can lie. If I guy can throw heat, but mechanically is killing his arm then a year from now, or 5 years from now those numbers mean squat. Or if he simply sets his employees on fire in a foreign land. You need to have evaluaters of all kinds to win.

SteelSD
02-05-2006, 01:54 AM
Depo was not naive, he was clueless. Though he was a brilliant statistician he was a terrible communicator. TERRIBLE. No one around him had any idea what was going on, be it his employer, his asst., the media, the people he was trying to trade with...Where O'Brien couldnt stomach pulling the trigger, Depo couldnt stomach answering his phone. Team isnt limited to the field, it occurs within the front office too. You have to build consenus, and be able to make your case within the organization to keep everyone on board and moving in the same direction. Depodesta was incapable of that.

Where is your information coming from?

I fail to see how so many transactions got done had DePo never answered his phone. I fail to see why DePo would care to talk to a media that had it out for him from day one. I fail to see why a "consensus" or how "keeping everyone on board" would be relevant when they were dead-set against doing anything but nuking the ship's captain- even after he demonstrated that he could put a playoff team on the field.

You're making a lot of brash claims that that could only be made if you were a fly on the wall in that Dodgers front office. And a high-level fly to boot.

Therefore, I ask again- Where is your information coming from?

Revering4Blue
02-05-2006, 03:23 AM
If it means anything,Ben Maller, a Fox Sports Radio host and die-hard Dodger fan, claims that Frank McCourt's trophy wife didn't like Depo at all. I also heard the same thing about Lasorda. In any case, DePo was railroaded by his own organization and anti- moneyball media honks. It's that simple.

Imho, he was unfairly criticized for roster moves. Granted, the signing of Jose Valentin and the trade of Dave Roberts for a AAAA Roberts clone at a time when
Roberts would have fetched much-needed-at the time- bullpen help were head scratchers. But produced no long-term negative ramifications.

J.D Drew produces when healthy, so it's not like he threw 55 million at Eric Milton.
Also, the payroll is higher now than it ever was in 2004 and 2005, although the Dodgers' farm system is deep enough to backfill positions, thereby lowering payroll in future years.

DePodesta knows what he is doing and will get another shot.

The Reds would be fortunate to land a G.M of his caliber.

Cooper
02-05-2006, 12:40 PM
if you have ever heard Depo speak you would not claim he couldn't communicate....he expresses his ideas well.

he got sabotaged by everyone in a sick, dysfunctional organization. sometimes it's just possible that things are so sick that a healthy indiividual ends up looking like a failure cause everyone around him is working overtime to curry with the owner. there was absolutely no chain of command in that organization....all kinds of folks were speaking out of turn.

no one will last more than 2 years in that kind of environment.

Nugget
02-06-2006, 06:47 PM
Moneyball is not about stats. I agree that the REDS need to use a Moneyball style philosophy but moneyball is not about stats. Its about identifying where there is a natural arbitrage situation in that a player is undervalued compared to where his skills and performance would be. Stats are one part but not all of it. Moneyball is not a pure numbers game, you have to combine an understanding of both. Scouting will tell you more than the numbers can.

Back to the Dodgers situation last year - yes they had injuries but it should not have crippled their chance to win a division in which I point out the winner went 82-80. Yes they won the division the year before and part of that was DePo's doing. And I don't think that DePo by himself moved enough money say to McCourt that they had enough money to buy J.D. Drew and Derek Lowe. From memory and I could be wrong I think they also brought in Jeff Kent as well.They also had breakthrough outfielder so the Dodgers were in a decent situation. They had smoe injuries but it did not blow up their whole roster. Also some of the injuries that occurred were well known risks on those players (which would have been evident from scouting).

SteelSD
02-06-2006, 11:38 PM
Back to the Dodgers situation last year - yes they had injuries but it should not have crippled their chance to win a division in which I point out the winner went 82-80. Yes they won the division the year before and part of that was DePo's doing. And I don't think that DePo by himself moved enough money say to McCourt that they had enough money to buy J.D. Drew and Derek Lowe. From memory and I could be wrong I think they also brought in Jeff Kent as well.They also had breakthrough outfielder so the Dodgers were in a decent situation. They had smoe injuries but it did not blow up their whole roster. Also some of the injuries that occurred were well known risks on those players (which would have been evident from scouting).

I don't think you realize the magnitude of the injuries. There isn't a team anywhere that could possibly withstand that injury hit. What you're suggesting is nigh-impossible- particularly while a GM is asked to reduce payroll. And no, they did not have a "breakthrough outfielder". In fact, DePodesta had to pick up @180 PA of Jose Cruz Jr. just to populate an OF that was decimated by injuries.

Secondly, the Dodgers entered 2004 with an 89M dollar payroll. They entered 2005 with an 81M dollar payroll.

Not sure what you think happened there, but it wasn't eight million bucks vanishing into thin air. It was DePodesta's doing.

RFS62
02-07-2006, 09:29 AM
Not sure what you think happened there, but it wasn't eight million bucks vanishing into thin air. It was DePodesta's doing.


He used it to pay off the referees in the Super Bowl.

That evil bastard.

Raisor
02-07-2006, 09:31 AM
He used it to pay off the referees in the Super Bowl.

That evil bastard.

As a Seahawk fan for over 20 years, if I find out that this is true....I'd still want him as the Reds' GM, but I'd find his car in the parking lot and let the air out.

That'd learn him.

KronoRed
02-07-2006, 10:25 AM
You're a hell raiser Raisor

registerthis
02-07-2006, 10:26 AM
As a Seahawk fan for over 20 years, if I find out that this is true....I'd still want him as the Reds' GM, but I'd find his car in the parking lot and let the air out.

That'd learn him.

You could also steal his radio antenna so that he gets bad radio reception in his car. He'd never try to buy a referee again.

westofyou
02-07-2006, 12:14 PM
Trying to say the Dodgers injuries didn't affect them is a stretch look at the guys they had with over 250 at bats. Mostly youngsters with little secondary or run producing skills.


LOS ANGELES DODGERS
SEASON
2005
AT BATS >= 250
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OPS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SECONDARY AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AT BATS AB AB RC/G OPS SEC AGE
1 Jeff Kent 553 553 1.65 .122 .089 37
2 Cesar Izturis 444 444 -2.02 -.143 -.135 25
3 Jason Phillips 399 399 -1.93 -.116 -.086 28
4 Oscar Robles 364 364 -1.16 -.067 -.093 29
5 Jayson Werth 337 337 -.74 -.055 .040 26
6 Hee Seop Choi 320 320 -.15 .023 .035 26
7 Olmedo Saenz 319 319 -.10 .038 .027 34
8 Milton Bradley 283 283 1.01 .068 .030 27
9 Jason Repko 276 276 -1.58 -.102 -.035 24
10 Antonio Perez 259 259 0.27 -.009 -.050 25
11 J.D. Drew 252 252 3.30 .165 .166 29

M2
02-07-2006, 12:31 PM
You're a hell raiser Raisor

Wouldn't that just be a hell raisor?

KronoRed
02-07-2006, 12:37 PM
Wouldn't that just be a hell raisor?
Yeah but the dbl sounds funny :D