rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 5, 2018 12:50:33 GMT -5
The general manageroffice provides the manager with a lineup EVERY game, according to a panel of four GM's who will appear on the MLB Network's "Business of Baseball" show this Saturday.
That said, the panel agreed that the job of the baseball manager was the hardest of any coach in any sport, that because of the slow nature of the game, it was easier to second-guess the manager than any other athletic coach. They were clear that the MANAGER made out the lineup, that the final decision was always his. The communication between the GM and the manager was said to be critical, empasizing that it was HEALTHY to disagree at times, and the belief was that if the GM found it difficult to open the door to the manager's office, he had a big problem.
Not only is the manager given what the analytics staff believes is the optimal lineup, reasons are given to the manager for each and every spot in that lineup. If the manager has a valid reason for doing differently -- and we know they often do -- the manager makes his own decision. Not that he and the GM might not discuss the decision, but in the end, that decision belongs to only one person.
An analysis of how to get hitters out is also available to the manager, including the type of pitcher, type of pitch, and individual pithers who match up well with each hitter. The manager has to decide, of course, if a pitcher can get the hitter out the same way the next time, and with today's good hitters -- armed with the same analytics -- that often if not usually isn't the case.
In other words, all the analytics we've discussed here -- and much more -- are available to the manager each and every game. It's up to him. If nothing else, the analytics can help give the manager reasons to back up a decision he made in the game, when his decisions are questioned by the reporters after the game is over -- just as those decisions have been crititized during the game.
If we think about it, the manager is essentially a personnel manager, and the GM's job is to get him the best personnel to manage. If there isn't tremendous communication between the two of them, tension is almost certain to result, and the result will likely be far less than optimal.
What I thought was a definitive comment was made. The comment was that analytics are black and white, while the game itself is played in a gray world. I myself believe that the rub is in distinguishing between the almost infinite shades of gray. And I think that the black and white facts provide a strong foundation to do so.
I believe we have to avoid taking a black and white approach. The white shouldn't be "because that's the way it's always been done," and the black should be because "that goes against the book." If the game between the lines is truly distinguishing between the gray areas -- and indeed approach often varies from pitch to pitch -- the participants need to have a strong foundation on which to build, and both the principles and the creativity make on-the-fly judgments.
They say not to get caught up in thinking about doing it, just to relax and let it flow. But for the most part, major league hitters, catchers and pitchers think about every single pitch. Fielders think about the pitch and how knowing it might help them get a better break.
Having as much information as possible -- along, of course, with experience -- makes those quick but highly important decisions managable. Hitters know, for instance, that there are just some pitches from some pitchers that they can't hit. Sometimes, even on occasion with two strikes, the hitter will simply give that pitch to the pitcher, tipping his cap if the pitcher can execute it.
Meanwhile, the pitcher and catcher are trying to set the hitter up with the type and location of pitches they throw. And the hitter is trying to think right along with them, preferably even being a step ahead.
Regardless of the level of baseball we've played, I think it is very, very difficult to understand just how difficult today's pitchers are to hit. Today's prospects are much more refined than they were even 20 or 30 years ago. They're better physically, and they're better mentally. They have better physical and mental coaching, as well as better nutrition and a more advanced approach to the game. I'm not sure any of us can fully understand that, but I believe we can strongly appreciate it.
The game is still bat meets ball, pitch it and catch it, but it's played on a different plane now, and sometimes the temptation is to get caught up in old ways when looking at what is to a significant degree a new game. A lot, perhaps even most, of the old principles still apply. But some of them don't. The best way to understand the game is to remain flexible and keep learning.
As with most other facets of life, the knowledge of baseball is increasing faster than we can learn it. A big first step is to know what we don't know. We can learn a lot of the black and white, but the game is still made up of the gray areas. At least the black and the white help us determine the edges of the gray. From there we need to keep an open mind.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 6, 2018 0:26:34 GMT -5
Stats geeks are in charge of running teams now...that sure explains why the game I grew up loving is going downhill fast in recent years
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 6, 2018 14:15:14 GMT -5
One thing we didn't get (and should at some point, if there is to be balance on the subject) is the manager's perspective. Here is an article from MLB.com that I found lent added perspective:
It's been almost 58 years since I began this unbelievable journey, armed with a tired portable typewriter, of reporting about the greatest game ever invented -- baseball.
Several weeks ago, when the Phillies appointed young Matt Klentak -- he's just 35 -- to be their general manager, it reminded me how much baseball has changed in the five-plus decades I've been writing about it.
GM Matt Klentak on joining Phils GM Matt Klentak on joining Phils 06:25 Nov. 6th, 2015
And before Klentak, about a year ago, 37-year-old Kevin Cash, who'd never managed a baseball game at any level, took over the Tampa Bay Rays for the legendary Joe Maddon.
When Joe Torre, Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox were elected to the Hall of Fame in December 2013, it signaled the end of an era. They were the faces of their teams, each just as much a celebrity as the players who controlled their teams' destinies.
If that era of the rock-star manager has passed, so has the role of general manager as we once knew it.
I believe at no time in its history has the way the game is managed changed as much as it has the last 10 years -- from the executive suite to the dugout.
Most managers today are an extension of their general manager, and that job description alone has dramatically changed.
The GM in title still exists, but for many teams there's the president of baseball operations, senior advisors, etc., etc. During the past four months, there have been 11 major changes in front offices.
Virtually every decision is tied to computer-generated analytical studies of players and teams. Seldom are seat-of-the-pants decisions made.
John Schuerholz is one of the most successful general managers in baseball history. He's now president of the Atlanta Braves, but during his 26 years as GM, he led them to a record 14 division titles.
"Yes, the role of the general manager has changed," he said. "The manager-GM relationship, on its principal merits, is essentially the same -- the communication between the GM and the manager as it relates to the construct of the team, what players you need, what character you want, what personalities and blend are best."
Schuerholz talks Coppolella Schuerholz talks Coppolella 07:31 Oct. 1st, 2015
Schuerholz says the complexities of the relationship are greater because of technological advancements in communication. "There's instantaneous information accessibility because of online media," he says. "Now, issues can become a public matter before action has been taken."
With many teams, it's coming down to traditional baseball vs. analytical baseball. No longer are general managers and managers grassroots baseball men who grew up in the game and paid years and years of dues climbing the ladder.
Instead, they're coming from such Ivy League universities as Dartmouth, Princeton and Harvard. Economics and other subjects that give them expertise to embrace the depth of analytics used in the game today are preferred to old-fashioned majoring in baseball.
"These guys may have attended Ivy League schools, but they don't matriculate directly from their last class to the desk of general manager," said Schuerholz. "Most of them have worked in baseball in one function or another, whether it be with an individual club or working in the Commissioner's office. They got exposure to the administration and management requirements of running a Major League team.
"Theoretically, with those degrees and that educational background, they're bright young people who happen to love and embrace baseball. In modern-day ownership of Major League teams, it's not only comfortable with that kind of general manager talent, but owners seek it out."
Klentak, for example, was captain of Dartmouth's baseball team, but his management savvy, which landed him jobs with the Orioles, the Angels and in the Commissioner's office prepared him for the coveted position with the Phillies.
"The omnipotent manager is no longer going to exist," said Maddon, now with the Cubs and just named NL Manager of the Year. "In the next several years, teams are going to revolve around managers and general managers and front offices."
Maddon believes there has to be a solid marriage between the front office and the field skipper. Old techniques no longer work.
Like it or not, analytics are the driving force in today's baseball. Most teams have created departments with personnel who spend their days researching statistics, attempting to get an edge over opponents. Teams are even permitted to have laptops in their dugouts, although they cannot be connected to WiFi.
Schuerholz reiterates the GM-manager relationship has to remain strong, but, "One of the two must have an understanding and a comfort level with analytics and sabermetrics. It's usually the general manager. Today, modern-day managers -- if they're going to have a comfortable relationship with their general manager -- will be better served if he accepts the value of analytics and sabermetrics. If the two of them are polar opposites, as it relates to their philosophies on that, it just won't work."
I remember sitting down with Don Zimmer shortly before he died in June 2014, talking about how the roles of managers and GMs have changed.
Laughing, Zim insisted it's not that new.
Bodley on Zimmer's legacy Bodley on Zimmer's legacy 03:05 Jun. 5th, 2014
When Zimmer played for the Cubs (1960-61), team owner Philip K. Wrigley decided to introduce his version of analytics to baseball.
"He had this huge IBM computer installed and had his people enter information and stats of all the players in the National League," said Zimmer. "And it was after the 1960 season he got the brainchild of his College of Coaches."
The plan was to have from eight to 12 managers rotating throughout the Cubs system with each at one time or another becoming "head coach."
"There would be no manager, but with revolving coaches," Zimmer said. "Mr. Wrigley said they'd be going back and forth from our Triple-A club. The theory was that while one of them was serving as head coach, the others would devote their time to teaching the finer points of baseball to the players.
"There was Vedie Himsl, Harry Craft, Elvin Tappe and Lou Klein. Of that group, only Craft had managed in the Majors. That didn't matter to Mr. Wrigley. The idea was to educate us. Obviously, it didn't work out."
Hal Bodley, dean of American baseball writers, is the senior correspondent for MLB.com. Follow him @halbodley on Twitter.
I had forgotten about the Cubs' failed experiment with the revolving coaches. As indicated here, it was an attempt to instill the Cubs' philosophy throughout their system, but in the short term it certainly didn' yield results. But that's mostly an aside.
The important factor is how the game has become so much more analytical. Most baseball traditionalists (which make up the majority of posters here) aren't going to like that idea, as Randy posted here and has expressed -- by my count -- 3,462,858 times. Younger fans likely go along with the change, both because they don't have the traditional background older fans do and because they embrace the analytical approach, often in their own jobs.
Believe it or not, I used to be a traditionalist. I still am in the sense that watching baseball games was never more fun for me than watching the two Willie's, Juan Marichal, Orlando Cepeda, Gaylord Perry and a handful of other good players. Nothing beat a Giants/Dodgers night game, such as the night Bobby Bonds made his debut with a grand slam.
Heck, I had enjoyed the heck out of watching the Fresno Giants play a game immediately after a Sunday Giants game at Candlestick Park. Bonds was by far the most heralded Fresno player, yet even though he was a fine fielder in the majors, he made not one, not two, but three errors in that game. Probably was a bit nervous, for starters. Fresno then was at the level San Jose is now.
Little did I know that less than a decade later I would meet the childhood best friend of my best friend (who passed away just last year as my longest continuous best friend). His childhood best friend was the owner of the Fresno Giants at that time.
Little did I know that two decades later I would watch Bob Brenly make not one, not two, not three, but four errors -- in the same INNING. Little did I know Brenley would rally back to win the game with his second walk-off homer of the day.
Little did I know that three decades later I would find this vast world of baseball analytics, something that gave me not so much a better understanding of the game I love as perhaps a more accurate one.
The game has indeed changed. Many traditionalists think it has changed for the worse. There are certainly things about we don't like -- like all the commercials between innings, which may be as much as twice as long as when we were kids. The game is a lot more commercialized, more of a business and less of a game -- although both have been there for well over a century and a quarter.
But the game has never been played at such a high level, both physically and mentally. If we're looking for the game to be played WELL, we're in the right era. The game seemed bigger back when we were kids. Compared to us, the game literally WAS bigger than life. But players were paid so little that rather than work out all but two weeks or a month of the off-season as players do now, most had to work winter jobs just so their families could survive. So many of the players came to camp to get in shape -- not already in shape and ready to go.
Probably the biggest change analytics have made is that more decisions are made not because "that's the way it's always been done," but because a fact-based analysis indicates that is the most likely way to lead to success. Some have a hard time adjusting to that. They like the way things "have always been done," because that is the way they know, the comfortable way.
They fear (or at least don't appreciate) change, and analytics have certainly changed the game. The analytical types will tell you that it's for the better, and can cite several handfuls of reasons why. The traditionalist will tell us it's worse because the players aren't as good now. It's also less comfortable for them because fewer things are done "the way they've always been done."
Analytics as WHY is something better and comes up with facts and reasons to support their answer. Traditionalists will often take the simplified approach "because that's the way it's always been done." If things improve, the analytics are likely right. If things don't change but say the same, the traditionalists are likely right.
One thing about the analytics that should give one pause though is that if the facts and reasons that help form their opinions resulted in the conclusion that things don't change for the better, that is the conclusion they would state. And they would likely have a lot more reasons than "because that's the way it's always been done." Or put another way, they could tell us WHY -- with multiple reasons -- it's always been done that way.
Maybe it would be a good analogy to say that traditionalists and their "that's the way it's always been done" take the shotgun approach, while the analytics try to look well below the adage to find the reasons supporting it and against it.
One side leans more toward pure acceptance (or pure rejection), and the other takes more of an approach of challenging, gathering facts, using reasoning and analysis, and often winding up more in the gray area. If they do wind up on the black side or the white side, they can give detailed reasons of how they got there.
None of those reasons is likely to be "that's the way it's always been done." They're more interested in WHY it's always been done that way than simply that that's the way it's always been done.
Baseball is asking more and more, why has it always been done that way. It is also better at noting exceptions, since there is little that has ALWAYS been done that way. The analytic type realizes that absolutes are almost never right. The traditionalist often takes comfort in the clarity and simplicity of that absoluteness.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 6, 2018 14:24:57 GMT -5
Automation is killing the sport we love. Pretty soon there will be computer programs replacing GMs...and soon after that field managers will be gone...and then the players themselves will become obsolete
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 6, 2018 15:10:55 GMT -5
Pretty soon there will be computer programs replacing GMs...and soon after that field managers will be gone...and then the players themselves will become obsolete Rog -- Fortunately there are people needed to develop the computer programs, and the computers themselves will need maintenance or replacement, or else there would be no employees at all in baseball. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship#ixzz5Yw7PFchI
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 17, 2018 11:15:51 GMT -5
If I'm a manager, the first time, and I mean the FIRST TIME a GM sends me a line up suggestion... the conversation gets loud and nasty and right now.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 2:33:53 GMT -5
In the old days, Boly, you would have had a good point. But in today's game I suspect even Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy had discussions about lineups and whom to play.
As I mentioned here or in another post, it is common now for the manager to receive a recommendation daily for lineup and batting order, with specific reasons for the recommendations, including pitcher/batter matchups all the way down to the types of pitches the pitcher throws best and the batter hits best.
I don't think you would really want to get nasty when those suggestions are made, since unless you were highly successful, your job would be in extreme jeopardy.
As a first-time manager today, you likely wouldn't get into your second season, making it difficult to judge you as a manager. The game has changed. A LOT.
Installment #2 of the MLB Network's new show "The Business of Baseball" involves four GM's and a former GM in a round table discussion of such things as the relationship between the GM and the manager. It would be well worth your viewing. I don't know if it's available on On Demand or not, but if you scroll through your guide, at some point it will be repeated -- likely multiple times.
The GM's explain how difficult the relationship between the GM and the manager becomes if they lose communication. My sense is that your loud conversation would lead to a loss of communication, and I believe the GM usually hires and fires the manager, not the other way around.
It's simply a new world in baseball, Boly. The information that is available to GM's, managers, coaches and players is many times as large as it was in our day. And that information is shared.
The manager still retains the final decision though. And the information at the very least gives him reasons for his decisions when they need to be defended to the media. Likely though the more the manager goes against the information, the better his success level must be to justify the variance.
His decision, but also of course his responsibility. Just as the odds favor the house in gambling, the information usually -- not always -- favors the best decision. A manager needs to have very, very good instincts in order to beat the odds.
It's a new ball game.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 18, 2018 11:32:45 GMT -5
It's a new ball game, no question, as Randy and other continually point out.
But that doesn't make it a better one.
Here's the thing that most people do NOT get, and there is NO WAY AROUND IT.
Shared leadership does NOT work.
I'll say it again; Shared leadership does NOT work.
I know. I lived with it teaching for the past 27 years.
Subordinates can make suggestions.
Upper management can dictate policy.
But in the trenches; on the field of battle, there can only be ONE voice; one leader; one captain of the ship.
And on this ship, the baseball ship, the manager is that leader, and his crew is the players on the field.
The GM gets the players. That makes him the commanding officer(the commander in chief-CIC) sitting behind a desk far removed from the battle.
The on the field leader is the manager. Thee guy in the trenches.
The commanding officer says "here's your personnel. Here's your equipment. We're going to take the hill by blah-blah-blah means, you figure out the details of how to move all the pieces around that you have."
THAT is reality.
The CIC does NOT tell the on the field commander how to deploy his men.
He does NOT dictate tactics.
He does grand strategic planning, not tactical.
In baseball, the MANAGER makes the tactical on the field decisions. NOT the GM.
I make it clear from DAY FREAKING ONE. You want me, here's the way I work.
You want to be the puppet master and make me dance?
You can't live with that, get someone else.
Bochy has EARNED that.
EARNED it.
Zaidi and the rest of the GMs are pencil pushing geeks with NO FREAKING IDEA OF WHAT GOES ON, ON THE FIELD.
None.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 16:27:07 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 16:28:51 GMT -5
Shared leadership does NOT work.
Rog -- Which is why the president is the primary leader. The GM reports to him, and the manager reports to the GM. I think it may have been that way even when we were young.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 16:29:39 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 16:37:05 GMT -5
The GM gets the players. That makes him the commanding officer(the commander in chief-CIC) sitting behind a desk far removed from the battle. The on the field leader is the manager. Thee guy in the trenches. Rog -- You seem to be opposed to the GM giving suggestions to the manager, but don't you think the manager makes suggestions to the GM as to what type of players to acquire? My guess is that the manager even has a fair amount of input into the final decision, although the ultimate decision is the GM's within ownership's budget. What is needed isn't a manager who speaks in indignation when he is given suggestions by the GM or the GM who is indignant when he is given suggestions by the manager, but rather two individuals who will work closely as a team. Think about today's dugout. There's a bench coach to play devil's advocate for the manager when it is time for in-game decisions. The manager has the authority to make the call, but a good manager values and ENCOURAGES other ideas. Together they should be able to make a decision better than either one of them separately, since each will have somewhat different knowledge, and frankly, there is probably too much information for one person to digest alone. One reason that is being hypothesized for the slower pace this off-season is that there are more voices in the room. Since there are more devils, there are more devil's advocates. Not that a decision can't be made, but the rash decision is less likely. Far more analysis goes into the decision, and if there is doubt, the decision is less likely to be made than if there is no doubt. Because virtually all teams today have similar information, it becomes harder to "trick" an opponent into a one-sided trade. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship?page=1#ixzz5a4cMn4ST
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 18, 2018 19:29:44 GMT -5
Suggestions?
I have no problem with suggestions.
Suggestions are like butt-holes; everybody has one.
But MY impression is that Zaidi's 'suggestions,' were much, much stronger than that.
My sources, and I won't reveal them, tell me he called a LOT of the shots.
Which makes Dave Roberts little more than a puppet.
People like Zaidi and other GMs who've played APBA, Strat-O-Matic or other baseball games read stats and 'think' they know the game.
They delude themselves into believing they know best when they don't.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 6:16:31 GMT -5
Zaidi and the rest of the GMs are pencil pushing geeks with NO FREAKING IDEA OF WHAT GOES ON, ON THE FIELD. None. Rog --There's a reasonable chance that he knows more about what goes on on a MAJOR LEAGUE field (and probably a minor league field) than any of us. Some of us likely know more about what goes on on a college or military field than Farhan. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship#ixzz5a7xvHnJc
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 6:17:26 GMT -5
Suggestions are like butt-holes; everybody has one.
Rog -- Good suggestions are somewhat different though.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 6:33:28 GMT -5
But MY impression is that Zaidi's 'suggestions,' were much, much stronger than that.
My sources, and I won't reveal them, tell me he called a LOT of the shots.
Which makes Dave Roberts little more than a puppet.
Rog -- Apparently Farhan is a pretty good puppet manager. His career winning percentage with Roberts is .588, and his puppet appears to be successful. Roberts' winning percentage is about 90 points higher than Bruce Bochy's, and in 2016 he was named The Sporting News and BBWA NL Manager of the Year.
Don Mattingly was essentially fired by Farhan, yet he has nothing bad to say about him. Perhaps Mattingly is just a really nice guy.
Here are some words though from when Mattingly and the Dodgers parted ways:
“Sometimes he would text us, ‘Hey — thinking this (about the lineup) — any thoughts?’ “ Friedman added, “because we had a fresher perspective. Just like in the winter, we would talk to him and say ‘Hey, we’re considering this trade — what do you think?’ He was part of the management team of this organization, and we had that back and forth.
“We want healthy disagreement. And there were plenty of times where we disagreed with Donnie and Donnie disagreed with us, but to me, that’s a good thing.”
As he has since last winter, Mattingly said he welcomed the input of Friedman, Zaidi and senior vice president of baseball operations Josh Byrnes, as well as the organization’s new levels of analytics, rather than finding them a burden.
“I just look at it as collaboration and us working together,” Mattingly said. “It’s similar to every year that I’ve managed, just better information this year. … Information is good, discussion is good, debating things back and forth is good. At the end of your day, you put your lineup out there.
“I felt very comfortable with Andrew and Josh and Farhan — I loved the information they were able to get. It was really a learning situation for me, (and) I really enjoyed that part of it.
Mattingly made a point of saying he felt he would be friends with Friedman, Zaidi and Byrnes “forever.”
“Andrew, Farhan and Josh are great guys,” Mattingly said, “and they’re going to do great things — I really believe that.”
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 6:34:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 19, 2018 11:17:16 GMT -5
What they DON'T KNOW is what it's like to actually play the game.
For them, it's all observation and theory.
Kind of like being a soldier. If you've been in combat, you know what it's like.
Until you have, you don't.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 19, 2018 13:48:04 GMT -5
That is why they don't get it Boly...and likely never will.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 22:47:09 GMT -5
What they DON'T KNOW is what it's like to actually play the game. Rog -- What is it exactlythat they don't know? And if they don't know them, isn't it a good idea to hire people who do? That's why I was hoping the Giants would improve their scouting, their analytics and their development. We've seen evidence of the first two, and I'm confident the third is being address as well. As an aside, let me again bring up a situation I found myself in where I was the boss and DIDN'T know the answer. It was a payroll question, and I'd never worked in payroll. What I did was ask questions of the person, trying to gain information that might help me solve the problem. Apparently I asked the right questions, and the employee solved the problem herself. Because of my lack of knowledge, I did a better job of managing than I would have if I knew more. Instead of giving the answer -- even explaining it well -- I was able to get the employee to solve it herself, which likely taught her more and helped build her self-esteem as well. In umpiring, I made a call, and the manager came flying (not literally -- perhaps more like gliding) out to challenge the call. He told me that his player tagged the runner, and even if he didn't, the player went out of the base line. I replied that the player did miss the runner, and pointed out that I had a great look down the third base line, and if the runner had gone outside the base line, no part of his body would have been on the dirt "lane" between the foul line and the grass. I told him it was a tough call, but that someone had to make it, and that I was the guy. Then I made my best move. I simply said, "Let's play ball." It was one of my first games, and I didn't know what else to say. My partner, a graduate of baseball's umpire school, asked me later how I got rid of the manager so quickly. If I had had more experience, I likely wouldn't have been so clear and direct, and I wouldn't have been able to end the discussion with such alacrity. I never told a manager he was wrong. I merely explained what I believed I saw after hearing his side of the story. I listened to his rebuttal, and it was time for me to say, "If it happened the way you saw it, I just missed it." I let the manager have the last say, and then it was time to play ball. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship#ixzz5aBwoH1a9
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 22:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 20, 2018 3:25:23 GMT -5
What it's like to play the game...stats geeks never will get that
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 20, 2018 11:04:43 GMT -5
Well said, Randy.
I gave my solider in combat example, which I believe is a solid BULLS EYE.
If you ain't been there, you DON'T know.
It's all conjecture and theory, nothing more, and all the Strat-O-Matic, APBA, and Dynasty Baseball games that a person plays won't change that.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 13:13:57 GMT -5
What it's like to play the game...stats geeks never will get that Rog -- That's all it is? I've been expecting something important. I've played more than enough sports to know what it's like to play the game -- as likely has virtually every analytic person involved with baseball. If they didn't know enough about what it's like to play the game and enjoy it, why would they be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly to work in baseball? But whether one knows what it's like to play the game or not, he can still understand it to at least the level you do. If I'm wrong, point out the ten things that will most retard that person's knowledge of the game? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship#ixzz5aFVCwqqP
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 13:14:47 GMT -5
Why is it, Randy, that these stats geeks are working for major league teams and you're not? Are you telling us you wouldn't be interested in working for the Giants?
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 20, 2018 13:19:34 GMT -5
owners hire these geeks because theyve been duped into believing they know more than real baseball men...they don't. The formulas for analytics can be done by any millenial with basic computer skills
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 20, 2018 13:52:44 GMT -5
There is a place for numerics in baseball, but I mostly agree with Randy; GM's have drunk the Kool Aide
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 14:50:35 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 14:53:40 GMT -5
owners hire these geeks because theyve been duped into believing they know more than real baseball men...they don't. The formulas for analytics can be done by any millenial with basic computer skills Rog -- Show us some of the ones you have come up with. You're not a millenial, but I'm guessing you have basic computer skills, and you've told us you know a lot about baseball. You don't need to be exotic. Just give us a rudimentary example of one analytical idea you came up with or at least learned. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship?page=1#ixzz5aFuWNCpl
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 20, 2018 15:01:21 GMT -5
There is a place for numerics in baseball, but I mostly agree with Randy; GM's have drunk the Kool Aide Rog -- Let me ask you this then. Why is it that recently retired catcher David Ross says that if he were just coming up, he would ask the analytics department just how they would go about getting him out? Personally I would ask all the pitchers and coaches on my team as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship?page=1#ixzz5aFvDQwkA
|
|