On the declining quality of the ORG

[kaldaniels]

Matheny is a rarity. The data is very clear on this. The percentage of experienced MLB managers who were successful is much higher than the percentage of inexperienced MLB managers who were successful. And let's not forget that Matheny came into an organization that was already very successful, with that success likely due to cheating while Matheny was manager. I'm surprised you of all people would use a single incident as evidence.

No one is arguing that experience alone makes a good manager. I can't think of a single manager that was hired, simply because they were experienced. The argument is that it shouldn't be left out completely, that it is one of the neccessry requirements for the job of MLB manager. We've seen a rise in it not being used, and Matheny is the only one that has worked so far.

I don't care about this issue above one bit, but in terms of this thread...you cannot write something like this (the bolded), then later on refuse to give any evidence to back it up.

You write that, which to myself (and others I'm sure) consider was in a "know-it-all"/condescending tone, the onus is on you to back it up. But you say it is a "playful dig" at RMR...well, good luck convincing myself and the others here in the peanut gallery that.

Hey, maybe you were correct, I don't know. But to say such a thing and claim you are too busy to back it up (and so on) in the least is just poor form.

[757690]

I don't care about this issue above one bit, but in terms of this thread...you cannot write something like this (the bolded), then later on refuse to give any evidence to back it up.

You write that, which to myself (and others I'm sure) consider was in a "know-it-all"/condescending tone, the onus is on you to back it up. But you say it is a "playful dig" at RMR...well, good luck convincing myself and the others here in the peanut gallery that.

Hey, maybe you were correct, I don't know. But to say such a thing and claim you are too busy to back it up (and so on) in the least is just poor form.

This is a perfect example of one the greatest problems that Redszone has.

As was stated above, this board is not about scoring points, or "winning the internet" with gotcha moments. It's about having a friendly discussion about meaningless, fun stuff we all love, over a virtual beer. This board has lost many quality posters, because they didn't want to waste time defending every syllable of every word that they type. They just want to have a fun, friendly debate about baseball. Far too much bandwidth is burned on this site by posters making seemingly innocuous statements, that are picked to death by overzealous semantic nazis, that then devolve into spiraling meta-debates over nothing that has to do with baseball, or whatever the original topic was.

No one enjoys such theater of the absurd, but it occurs here on a seemingly daily basis.

And here starts another one (at least it's in the proper forum). To be honest, I could give a rat's ass about convincing anyone on this board about what I meant in that post, because it should be a non-issue. Even if I was wrong to say it that way, we shouldn't be focusing on that in the debate, we should be arguing about the issue at hand. Btw, when you ignore the personal attacks, the thread did spark a very healthy debate over how to define a successful manager, and who those might be, who were hired with no experience. Unfortunately, like most threads, it was derailed with petty gotcha attempts to win the internet.

BTW, if you knew what I did this week at work, you would know that I wasn't just claiming that I was too busy to do the extensive research that such a task entails. And realize, that it requires me analyzing every single managerial hire over the whatever period of time I chose as my sample size. I also realized from past experiences, that not matter what criteria or methodology or sample size I used, it would be subject to the same endless attacks that I was talking about in post #490.

[Larry Schuler]

Just posting to say that "the board has lost many posters because [insert whatever personal issue the poster is dealing with]" is one of my favorite memes of the Site Feedback forum.

[757690]

Just posting to say that "the board has lost many posters because [insert whatever personal issue the poster is dealing with]" is one of my favorite memes of the Site Feedback forum.

Cliches are cliches because they are true and said so many times by so many people.

There is a reason why that phrase is used so often on this board. Just check post from previous years. You will see many quality posters who are gone. The data is clear on this

[jojo]

The biggest problem with this discussion board is the expectation that there would be discussion. But all kidding aside, the problem isn't that generally the ORG has a tradition of expressing the actual reasons for one's opinions. The problem is that some argue all they want to do is simply express an opinion without having to defend it yet they thrive on being associated with marathon threads in which they simple act like a brick wall while inviting others to practice their tennis game against it all the while arguing it's raising the quality of discussion while at the same time arguing that it's unreasonable for others to expect their responses would actually be contemplated by the "bricklayer".

It's utter shenanigans for certain posters to suggest all they want to do is drop by and share a casual opinion that they may or may not have thought much about given the posting history in the archives. Certain people have just routinely had their forcefully articulated opinions eviscerated by vigorous debate. Perhaps the biggest problem is a refusal to learn coupled with the notion that it's cool just to argue to argue whether one actually believes what their arguing or not.

[Dom Heffner]

Chuckie: "Cashman and Dipoto are bad GMs because they handed out bad contracts."

Myself (and others): "Well, you're entitled to the opinion, but ownership of those teams, especially the Angels, have claimed responsibility for the big signings. Can't blame the GM alone for the bad contracts when they aren't the ones who handed them out."

Chuckie: "Cashman and Dipoto are bad GMs because they handed out bad contracts."


So yeah, it's like talking to a brick wall. I can accept that I won't change his mind, I really don't care to continously post about American League GMs, but I'll still point out the facts. And they'll continue to be ignored. Also, Chuckie has very thin-skin.

To his point, when it's one against ten, the one is going to sound like he goes on and on and beats a dead horse.

[kaldaniels]

This is a perfect example of one the greatest problems that Redszone has.

As was stated above, this board is not about scoring points, or "winning the internet" with gotcha moments. It's about having a friendly discussion about meaningless, fun stuff we all love, over a virtual beer. This board has lost many quality posters, because they didn't want to waste time defending every syllable of every word that they type. They just want to have a fun, friendly debate about baseball. Far too much bandwidth is burned on this site by posters making seemingly innocuous statements, that are picked to death by overzealous semantic nazis, that then devolve into spiraling meta-debates over nothing that has to do with baseball, or whatever the original topic was.

No one enjoys such theater of the absurd, but it occurs here on a seemingly daily basis.

And here starts another one (at least it's in the proper forum). To be honest, I could give a rat's ass about convincing anyone on this board about what I meant in that post, because it should be a non-issue. Even if I was wrong to say it that way, we shouldn't be focusing on that in the debate, we should be arguing about the issue at hand. Btw, when you ignore the personal attacks, the thread did spark a very healthy debate over how to define a successful manager, and who those might be, who were hired with no experience. Unfortunately, like most threads, it was derailed with petty gotcha attempts to win the internet.

BTW, if you knew what I did this week at work, you would know that I wasn't just claiming that I was too busy to do the extensive research that such a task entails. And realize, that it requires me analyzing every single managerial hire over the whatever period of time I chose as my sample size. I also realized from past experiences, that not matter what criteria or methodology or sample size I used, it would be subject to the same endless attacks that I was talking about in post #490.

Your first post in this thread seemed to imply that you felt "picked on" (and maybe that's not the exactly correct term to use, I don't know what is, but alas) for your point of view often on here. So I went to the thread you quoted and there was a perfect example of why.

I don't know why you choose to say "the data is clear" and reference some unknown percentage...but you did. If we were having a beer and you said such a thing I would also follow up with "what are you talking about?" and "well that's just your opinion man."

If we were having a spirited debate and I said "the data clearly shows" in opposition to what you were saying are you suggesting you would just let that statement slide?

It's not about winning arguments on here, but I'm tired of reading "come on guys it's not about winning and losing arguments" on here when someone is seemingly on the wrong side of things.

And I am really sorry for your rough week at work. Trust me, I've been there. We all have.

I'm not wanting to scold you about things here but you seemed to be perplexed/confused as to why people would treat your posts the way they do. I'm just providing an example of why some may view your posts as a nuisance (forgive me choice of words if I'm off...I hope you get the point...that's all).

[klw]

Being obtuse isn't praiseworthy and it isn't persecution to point it out.

[Bob Sheed]

Cliches are cliches because they are true and said so many times by so many people.

There is a reason why that phrase is used so often on this board. Just check post from previous years. You will see many quality posters who are gone. The data is clear on this

Well at least we still have you, otherwise might as well shut it down.

- - - Updated - - -

To his point, when it's one against ten, the one is going to sound like he goes on and on and beats a dead horse.

Do tell, Dom...

[757690]

It's not about winning arguments on here, but I'm tired of reading "come on guys it's not about winning and losing arguments" on here when someone is seemingly on the wrong side of things.

You just don't get it. You don't get it at all.

One doesn't win a debate by being "on the right side of things." One wins a debate by providing facts, logic and reason to defend their position. It's quite possible that both sides win a debate, if they both do a good job of defending their positions. If you approach a debate from the point of view that you are on the "right side of things" and the other person is on "the wrong side of things" you have already lost the debate.

Clearly, there are positions that can be cleared with facts, like who lead the NL in HR's in 1977, or which player had a higher WAR in 2014. But most positions debated on message boards like this don't have a "right side" or "wrong side." Positions like who was a better reliever last year, or was Brian Cashman a good GM, or how successful are managers who were hired without experience, have no clear cut right or wrong answers. Which is why we debate them.

We can't debate the former kind of positions, they are the definition, of "non-debatable." But the latter kind, is what is this board is built on. Unfortunately, too many posters here conflate the two, and think there is a right and wrong side to the latter kind of positions. When they make their argument, and the other side doesn't concede, they get frustrated, and call the other person a "brick wall" or say the other person "just won't stop arguing."

[757690]

I'm not wanting to scold you about things here but you seemed to be perplexed/confused as to why people would treat your posts the way they do. I'm just providing an example of why some may view your posts as a nuisance (forgive me choice of words if I'm off...I hope you get the point...that's all).

I made clear that I didn't have time to look up the data, and that I was just making a playful dig at RMR, because he made a rare rookie mistake by using an isolated incident to make his case.

You and other posters chose not to believe me on either count. The problem wasn't with what I posted. If almost any other poster made such posts, they would likely have been believed, and it would be a non-issue. I wasn't. If you want to discuss that, feel free. But don't try to argue that those posts of mine that you quoted are the reason why people consider me a nuisance. The issue runs deeper than those posts.

[kaldaniels]

You just don't get it. You don't get it at all.

One doesn't win a debate by being "on the right side of things." One wins a debate by providing facts, logic and reason to defend their position. It's quite possible that both sides win a debate, if they both do a good job of defending their positions. If you approach a debate from the point of view that you are on the "right side of things" and the other person is on "the wrong side of things" you have already lost the debate.

Clearly, there are positions that can be cleared with facts, like who lead the NL in HR's in 1977, or which player had a higher WAR in 2014. But most positions debated on message boards like this don't have a "right side" or "wrong side." Positions like who was a better reliever last year, or was Brian Cashman a good GM, or how successful are managers who were hired without experience, have no clear cut right or wrong answers. Which is why we debate them.

We can't debate the former kind of positions, they are the definition, of "non-debatable." But the latter kind, is what is this board is built on. Unfortunately, too many posters here conflate the two, and think there is a right and wrong side to the latter kind of positions. When they make their argument, and the other side doesn't concede, they get frustrated, and call the other person a "brick wall" or say the other person "just won't stop arguing."

The point that you made that I showed could be a point of contention was one of those "non-debatable" things you mentioned. There is a right side and a wrong side. You staked out your ground in saying that you were on the right side...but unfortunately in doing so on a rather obscure "stat", the onus is on you to show your work. There is nothing controversial about that thought...it's just how it is.

Or:

If you don't have time to research just state what your opinion is on the matter and let it go. For example "I'm not sure, but I'd wager managers with experience do better than those without". That is worlds apart from "the data is clear..." and would be handled much better by the board.

[757690]

The point that you made that I showed could be a point of contention was one of those "non-debatable" things you mentioned. There is a right side and a wrong side. You staked out your ground in saying that you were on the right side...but unfortunately in doing so on a rather obscure "stat", the onus is on you to show your work. There is nothing controversial about that thought...it's just how it is.

Or:

If you don't have time to research just state what your opinion is on the matter and let it go. For example "I'm not sure, but I'd wager managers with experience do better than those without". That is worlds apart from "the data is clear..." and would be handled much better by the board.

Posts later in the thread demonstrated that no one could even define what a "successful" manager was. So, it clearly was very debatable.

And this was my first response to the a request for data:

Give me some time, and I certainly can. But is anyone going to argue that managers who were hired without any professional managerial or bench coaching experience have a good record? Like I said, outside of Matheny, I can't remember one that was successful.

Pretty much what you suggested I say.

[kaldaniels]

When I say I'm trying to help, please just take it as such.

Take it from me. When I first joined here I was a Grade A butthead at times. I had go-rounds with the likes of Steel, nate and RMR that I caused and I'm not proud of. I only hope I have redeemed myself. I was an irritant.

But I grew up in a sense. The following qualities/traits will help your status here if you improve them.

- self-deprecation
- thoughtfulness
- respect
- a "let it go" attitude (unless it is with Doug...I never let it go with Doug )
- humor in regards to the discussion
- lack of hubris
- acknowledge a fair point raised by others (i.e. don't have your default response set to argue)

Now I'm not saying you are the opposite of the above, nor do you have to improve on each one of those things...but in doing so (and I'm not 100 percent at all times in those things) it has helped me tremendously here.

[wheels]

I don't know about other folks, but I post opinions all the time, and they're rarely, if ever contested.

It could mean one or more things:

1. It's such an obviously stupid opinion that it doesn't merit a response (I suspect this).

2. It was posted in such an awesome manner that it is left to shine in it's own greatness for posterity.

3. The opinion isn't framed as though I'm an authority on something I don't do for a living.

My Redszone life is akin to a pitcher throwing a no hitter.