StL Blog: Reds division title doesn't validate Jocketty's system

[Ghosts of 1990]

http://www.fungoes.net/2010/10/01/re...kettys-system/

It’s easier to evaluate proven major-league talent and trade for stars than it is to analyze and project 18-year-olds and build a sustainable system. When Joey Votto and Jay Bruce start making major-league salaries and Jocketty has to make some hard choices to stay competitive, we’ll see how well his system works. For now, his team is a good example of how balancing evaluation and analysis — and mixing vets with in-house talent — is a winning formula. It’s kind of like what the Cardinals have been trying to do since he left (though John Mozeliak has been a lot like Jocketty). To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, "See, you know how to make a championship team, you just don’t know how to hold the championship team, and that’s really the most important part, the holding. Anybody can just make them." The 2010 title is no doubt rewarding in and of itself (and certainly made all the sweeter by the opponent over which it was won), but the important part for Jocketty will be keeping the Reds consistently competitive for the next few years. That — and not a one-year title built on the work of his predeccessor — will prove that Jocketty’s system works.

Basically, the guy is saying it was what was in place and not anything Walt Jocketty really did.

I suppose that I kind of see the point here. What was Jock's best move in building this team? I'm having a hard time thinking of a whole lot. I'd love to know how much of sticking with Bruce/Stubbs and committing to the youth not only this season but since mid-2008 was Jock's decision and how much was others in the organization, because in my mind that was a lot bigger than any move that could have been made.

The take home message or moral of the story is of course Jock's tenure is yet to be written here. It's how he keeps the wheels on the machine over the next five seasons that will define his whole grade, but Jocketty gets an A for sticking with the young guys and not mortgaging the future this season to acquire a Cliff Lee. That's knowing your personnel and knowing we had what it took to take the next step with what we had on our roster already.

Hope he finds a way to keep our nucleus all together.

[GAC]

Simply sounds like a bitter Card fan to me.

I was reading an article on ESPN the other day where Kurkjian was critiquing the division races, and when he got to the NL Central he basically said the only reason the Reds will win is because of the Cardinal's collapse. Typical ESPN.

[Reds4Life]

"Anybody can just make them", really? I dont think so. If that's true, then why didn't the Cards do it this season? In fact, if that were the case and it's so easy, every team in MLB would be fighting for a playoff spot. Sounds like someone is bitter because the GM they let go is having success elsewhere.

I am not really concerned with the decisions Walt is going to make, his resume speaks for itself, the guy knows what it takes to win. What scares me is, how long does he want to keep doing this? If Walt decides to retire one of these years I'm scared to death we'll get Bavasi as his replacement.

[Scrap Irony]

Jocketty is directly responsible for half the starting offense in either trades or free agent signings. He also signed or traded for all but one bench bat and the three most effective relievers in the pen.

But yeah, he's not responsible for anything.

[Brutus]

All I got out of that was a bunch of contradictions, qualifiers, he watches Seinfeld and he's bitter.

[guttle11]

Trading decent, perhaps overvalued prospects for a very valuable veteran bat...no, not the Jocketty MO at all.

[RedsManRick]

His basic premise seems sound to me. The article was a rebuttal to Murry Chass's claim that this season demonstrates that Jocketty's approach based primarily on qualitative information is better than a more analytical approach. (Chass is a first-class, get-off-my-lawn curmudgeon who loves nothing more than to find ways to tear down sabermtetrics and bloggers and especially sabermetric bloggers, fwiw)

Most of the production the Reds have gotten this year has come from guys Jocketty inherited. Sure, he's put some quality icing on the cake, but the cake was baked when he got here. Jocketty deserves credit for what he's done, but this team is hardly "his" creation and certainly doesn't validate, or invalidate, Jocketty's approach as a GM.

The author rightly points out that quality player development is a key part of the success of any team, this Reds team included. And Jocketty can not be credited for the development of Votto, Bruce, Bailey, Cueto, etc.

[VR]

[Cedric]

His basic premise seems sound to me. The article was a rebuttal to Murry Chass's claim that this season demonstrates that Jocketty's approach based primarily on qualitative information is better than a more analytical approach. (Chass is a first-class, get-off-my-lawn curmudgeon who loves nothing more than to find ways to tear down sabermtetrics and bloggers and especially sabermetric bloggers, fwiw)

Most of the production the Reds have gotten this year has come from guys Jocketty inherited. Sure, he's put some quality icing on the cake, but the cake was baked when he got here. Jocketty deserves credit for what he's done, but this team is hardly "his" creation and certainly doesn't validate, or invalidate, Jocketty's approach as a GM.

The author rightly points out that quality player development is a key part of the success of any team, this Reds team included. And Jocketty can not be credited for the development of Votto, Bruce, Bailey, Cueto, etc.

Depends on what you call "most of the production."

I think Rolen on the field and off the field has been the biggest key to this franchise turning around.

[Scrap Irony]

Most of the production the Reds have gotten this year has come from guys Jocketty inherited. Sure, he's put some quality icing on the cake, but the cake was baked when he got here. Jocketty deserves credit for what he's done, but this team is hardly "his" creation and certainly doesn't validate, or invalidate, Jocketty's approach as a GM.

This is the assumption both the bloger and you, RMR, make. That "icing" won the Central crown, Rick.

The addition of Hernandez made the Cincinnati catching tandem among the best in the league.

The addition of Rolen gave the Reds their second-best hitter.

Masset was their best reliever on the year, outside of Rhodes. Both were Jocketty signings.

Then you've got Leake and Chapman, who were signed during Jocketty's tenure. (Neither of which would be considered player development.)

Sure, Votto wasn't his "get". Neither was Bailey, Cueto, Bruce, or Stubbs. But those guys are hardly the only reason the Reds won the title in 2010.

[westofyou]

I know what's validated by this article.

Pettiness

[RedsManRick]

This is the assumption both the bloger and you, RMR, make. That "icing" won the Central crown, Rick.

The addition of Hernandez made the Cincinnati catching tandem among the best in the league.

The addition of Rolen gave the Reds their second-best hitter.

Masset was their best reliever on the year, outside of Rhodes. Both were Jocketty signings.

Then you've got Leake and Chapman, who were signed during Jocketty's tenure. (Neither of which would be considered player development.)

Sure, Votto wasn't his "get". Neither was Bailey, Cueto, Bruce, or Stubbs. But those guys are hardly the only reason the Reds won the title in 2010.

What is your point? Yes, Jocketty inherited a team with a good core of young talent and added the right pieces to put it over the top. No one player or few players are "the reason" the Reds won the central. The Reds won the central because all of the players who comprise the team beat the other teams. And if you look at all of the runs scored and all of the runs prevented, the guys who were already here when Jocketty arrived contributed more than the guys he brought in. Rolen only makes "the" difference if the other 24 guys are good enough for him to do so.

That's not casting aspersions on Jocketty. He's done a very good job. But you don't give the gold medal just to the guy who runs the anchor leg, even if he ran really fast. It all counts. Jocketty made some really nice additions and I give him full credit for that. But he inherited an organization well positioned for him to do so.

This isn't a mutually exclusive proposition. Jocketty came in to a good situation and did a good job. To give him full credit is silly. To give him no credit is silly. All I'm saying, and what the author is saying, is that the Reds success doesn't prove anything about Jocketty's approach to general managing nor the Cards' current GM's approach. Is that really such a controverisal claim?

[Captain Hook]

Agreed!

There are a bunch of teams out there with a handful of quality guys and prospects with potential that fail to turn that situation into winning seasons.

Maybe this writer should worry more about how his team is going to sign their best player and at the same time field a team that's not filled with a bunch of scrubs.Going to be difficult imo considering the money they already have committed to just a handful of guys.The Reds problems seem far less in comparison.

[MWM]

What a load of crap. Jocketty isn't a "system" guy and that's one of things that makes him great at what he does. He's a guy that makes smart moves and understands what it takes to take a team that's close and put them over the top. Would he be a great GM in a rebuilding situation? Maybe not. But is there many guys better in a situation where a few prudent moves can take a strong nucleus and add the finishing touches? Absolutely.

That's where Bowden failed so badly. He was good at putting a team together that was close to being a legit contender. He was clueless as to how to finish the job.

[Wheelhouse]

Depends on what you call "most of the production."

I think Rolen on the field and off the field has been the biggest key to this franchise turning around.

Agreed.