|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 21, 2019 15:58:34 GMT -5
It's comments like this one, that disturb the crap outta me.
"Zaidi has a reputation for being the smartest guy in the room..."
Says who?
Smartest in what?
Based upon what criterion?
I get really, really leery, and I don't mean Timothy, when people start throwing that kind of nonsense around.
It does, in fact, tick me off!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 21, 2019 22:04:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 22, 2019 10:20:54 GMT -5
A top economist?
So Farhan is great with economics.
I don't and wouldn't question that.
He can watch his quarters, nickels and dimes. That's a good thing for any business.
What in the world does that have to do with baseball acumen?
The answer is, nada.
Until he proves that he has any more of a clue about the game than the rest of us on this board, calling him the smartest guy in the room is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Comments
Feb 22, 2019 10:27:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 22, 2019 10:27:08 GMT -5
I have no doubt Zaidi is intelligent, I'm sure in many settings he is the smartest guy in the room. But, for instance, if he were in a room with Bochy and our best scouts and they were discussing baseball, he's no longer the smartest guy in the room. If he realizes that, and realizes he can learn from them just as much as they can learn from him, I think we'll be pleased with the job he does over the next 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 22, 2019 16:57:34 GMT -5
Bingo! Once again, boagie, you summed it up perfectly!
Especially the part where you said..."IF he realizes it."
And I'm not sure ANY sabermetrics geek realizes that.
|
|
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 Feb 22, 2019 18:31:25 GMT -5
Anyone who THINKS he's the smartest guy in the room most likely isn't
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 1:18:28 GMT -5
Until he proves that he has any more of a clue about the game than the rest of us on this board, calling him the smartest guy in tUntil he proves that he has any more of a clue about the game than the rest of us on this board, calling him the smartest guy in the room is ridiculous.
Rog -- First of all, believe me, despite any self-feelings we have, he knows more about the game than we do. For starters, he's been exposed to guys who have been heavily involved with baseball at a much higher level than any of us.
But that has nothing to do with his being the SMARTEST in the room. I highly doubt he's been the smartest in every room he's been in. He's been in some pretty heavy rooms. But he's been the smartest gusy in a lot of them. More than any of us has.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 1:19:48 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 1:21:17 GMT -5
Actually, my statement was false. You didn't say he wasn't the smartest; you said he likely wasn't. My sense is that the smartest guy in the room usuallly suspects he's the smartest based on past experience.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 1:23:25 GMT -5
But, for instance, if he were in a room with Bochy and our best scouts and they were discussing baseball, he's no longer the smartest guy in the room. Rog -- He very likely is still the smartest guy in the room. Not necessarily the most knowledgeable about the topic at hand, but still the smartest. There are differences between being the smartest, the most knowledgeable and the wisest. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments?page=1#ixzz5gKh16Bh1
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 1:43:22 GMT -5
So Farhan is great with economics. I don't and wouldn't question that. He can watch his quarters, nickels and dimes. That's a good thing for any business. What in the world does that have to do with baseball acumen? The answer is, nada. Rog -- You are correct. What it does have to do with though is the ability to learn. And a person with a high ability to learn who finds that baseball is his passion is highly likely to learn a lot about it, which will obviously increase his baseball acumen. Hence Farhan's having accomplished things in baseball that have made many respect his baseball acumen highly. In many cases, those who respect his baseball acumen have an extremely high acumen themselves, having been exposed to things in the game none of us has. I suspect that Bruce Bochy has far more respect for Farhan's baseball acumen than we on the board do. Because Bruce knows baseball better than we do, and he knows Farhan better than we as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments#ixzz5gKlAV1kE
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 1:45:15 GMT -5
If he realizes that, and realizes he can learn from them just as much as they can learn from him, I think we'll be pleased with the job he does over the next 5 years. Rog -- Everything I've read about Farhan indicates he's pretty self-effacing, connects with people well, and tries to learn wherever and from whomever he can. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments?page=1#ixzz5gKmaOQrk
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 23, 2019 2:00:05 GMT -5
Rog -- First of all, believe me, despite any self-feelings we have, he knows more about the game than we do. For starters, he's been exposed to guys who have been heavily involved with baseball at a much higher level than any of us.
Boagie- This is the mindset of the stat geeks, they honestly believe talking about baseball and clicking on sabremetric websites makes them more knowledgeable than people who have played the game. It's pathetic. This is why they play fantasy baseball, they truly believe it makes them more capable of running a team than those who don't play fantasy leagues. They pay no attention to the keyword "fantasy."
Fargeek knows about being an executive, and he knows about stats, but that doesn't enable him to hit or throw a curve ball or judge a fly ball. THOSE are the things that ARE crucial to knowing baseball, if you aren't able to say or prove you can do those things on a baseball field, your additional baseball knowledge is irrelevant. This is just reality, Rog. I know you're enamored with this calculator style of baseball these days, I'm glad you feel like you're a part of that, but don't continue to fool yourself thinking that actually playing the game doesn't mean anything. It just makes you look foolish to the rest of us.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 2:03:29 GMT -5
This is the mindset of the stat geeks, they honestly believe talking about baseball and clicking on sabremetric websites makes them more knowledgeable than people who have played the game. Rog -- You're generalizing, which is almost always a big mistake, and you don't have enough knowledge to know the mindset of "stats geeks." Rather than deal with specific facts, you guys seem to love to generalize. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments#ixzz5gKqxvZpr
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 2:04:37 GMT -5
Fargeek
Rog -- Yeah, we're short on facts, so let's throw out the demeaning nicknames. Nickshame.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 2:09:03 GMT -5
Fargeek knows about being an executive, and he knows about stats, but that doesn't enable him to hit or throw a curve ball or judge a fly ball. THOSE are the things that ARE crucial to knowing baseball Rog -- Sorry, Boagie, but they're not. Those things are crucial to PLAYING baseball, but they're not crucial to knowing it. The player who plays the game the best doesn't know the most about it. Of course it is equally true that the person who knows the game best doesn't always play it the best. Ask the Astros' pitching staff about the mental side of the game, and I suspect we'd all learn a TON. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments?page=1#ixzz5gKrtPPqv
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 2:15:54 GMT -5
if you aren't able to say or prove you can do those things on a baseball field, your additional baseball knowledge is irrelevant Rog -- That's foolish, Boagie. Boly has spoken about the Vietnam War. He's right that those who weren't in that war can't know everything about it. But there are those who have studied the war who know far more about it than some who served. Those who served know details others can't know, but most don't have a broad overall knowledge of the war. In order to survive, they had to be too heavily focused on their own small part of the war to have a good knowledge of the overall. And the Vietnam War hasn't changed since it ended. The game of baseball has changed greatly. It's probably changed more in the past decade or so (or even the past five years) than it's changed in the rest of our lifetime. That's probably true even of Don. I wish we heard more from Don. I have a feeling he understands better than the rest of us just how quickly the game is changing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments?page=1#ixzz5gKt2Kixx
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 2:19:21 GMT -5
I know you're enamored with this calculator style of baseball these days Rog -- I'm a calculator guy. I'm something of a figure it in my had guy, alhough not nearly as much as I once was. Just can't do it nearly as well anymore. This is NOT a calculator style of baseball today. Computer style, yes. Calculator style, no. What it mostly is though is a knowledge style. The specificity of baseball knowledge has increased astronomically. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments?page=1#ixzz5gKucXfGf
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 23, 2019 2:21:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Comments
Feb 23, 2019 8:55:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 23, 2019 8:55:54 GMT -5
Rog -- Sorry, Boagie, but they're not. Those things are crucial to PLAYING baseball, but they're not crucial to knowing it. The player who plays the game the best doesn't know the most about it. Of course it is equally true that the person who knows the game best doesn't always play it the best.
Boagie- So you believe you'd learn more about baseball from Fargeek than you would from Barry Bonds or Willie Mays? You can't be that stupid.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 23, 2019 10:40:28 GMT -5
Boly has spoken about the Vietnam War. He's right that those who weren't in that war can't know everything about it. But there are those who have studied the war who know far more about it than some who served.
***boly says***
You're misinterpreting me here, Roger. That's not what I wrote about, nor was it my point.
I never said "can't know everything about it."
My point was, if you didn't serve, if you weren't there, don't talk like you served or that you were there.
I was referencing one guy in particular, with whom I worked.
My comment had nothing to do with "knowing the war better by studying it, then those who were there.
That's a foolish statement because historically we can always look back and know more than the guy who was there.
But it doesn't change my statement;
If you weren't there, don't talk and walk like you know what it was like from the ground up.
Same with baseball or any sport.
If you've never faced a nasty breaking ball, or faced a high velocity fastball with movement, one should never talk like they have.
Stats don't show what that experience was like.
Thus, boagie was and is right: Fargeek knows about being an executive, and he knows about stats, but that doesn't enable him to hit or throw a curve ball or judge a fly ball. THOSE are the things that
ARE crucial to knowing baseball
|
|
|
Comments
Feb 23, 2019 11:38:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 23, 2019 11:38:41 GMT -5
Well said, Boly. I have to assume Rog is just having difficulty understanding our idea of truly knowing baseball.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 23, 2019 13:06:09 GMT -5
I have no doubt that Roger understands the game from an intellectual perspective, the same as I understand the Second WW from an intellectual perspective.
I've studied it intensely over the years, but I would never pretend to know what it was like to having participated in it.
My father was in the Navy, and was off the coast of Okinawa when the first EVER Kamakazi strikes were launched.
I've read about them, studied the history and rationale behind them, but since I wasn't there I have no clue what those sailors were thinking, what they went through, as they were actually occurring.
And no matter how many books I read, no matter how many movies I watch, I never, ever will.
Thus when someone talks about knowing baseball Roger takes that to mean "having studied the game," and thus understanding it.
But that is not the same as having played it, and that's not what we/I mean.
That's why I liked your comment: Fargeek knows about being an executive, and he knows about stats, but that doesn't enable him to hit or throw a curve ball or judge a fly ball.
THOSE are the things that ARE crucial to knowing baseball.
Being knowledgeable on an intellectual level isn't the same as knowing the game from an operational level.
Therefore when it comes to player evaluation, that evaluation cannot simply be done from a "numbers" perspective.
There are so many intangibles.
Remember our arguments about chemistry?
For the longest time, Roger argued that there was no such thing.
But having played so long, I know for a fact that there is.
It just can't be quantified by numbers, and since it can't, it's hard for Roger to wrap his head around the concept, much less consider it real.
Roger means well, but sometimes/often times when we talk about the game, we're coming at it from different perspectives, and though we may use the same words, those same words have different meanings.
That's why I have frequently said; "we have no common ground upon which we can even discuss this subject," or words to that effect.
|
|
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 Feb 23, 2019 14:56:32 GMT -5
Boagie- So you believe you'd learn more about baseball from Fargeek than you would from Barry Bonds or Willie Mays? You can't be that stupid.
Dood - I disagree
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 23, 2019 16:28:02 GMT -5
Boagie- So you believe you'd learn more about baseball from Fargeek than you would from Barry Bonds or Willie Mays? You can't be that stupid.
Dood - I disagree
boagie; to whom is your post responding?
And Randy, what are you disagreeing with?
|
|
|
Comments
Feb 23, 2019 20:53:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 23, 2019 20:53:15 GMT -5
I was responding to Rog, and I believe Randy was disagreeing with me saying Rog can't be that stupid.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 24, 2019 11:05:04 GMT -5
Thus, boagie was and is right: Fargeek knows about being an executive, and he knows about stats, but that doesn't enable him to hit or throw a curve ball or judge a fly ball. THOSE are the things that ARE crucial to knowing baseball Rog -- I guess I'm beginnning to see where you're coming from. I guess I knew it was something like that. I simply couldn't believe it that was the point. Let's get right to the logic here. If what you said were true, the best managers would be those who could hit the curve ball best or judge fly balls best. The best scouts would be those who could hit the curve ball or judge fly balls best. The best baseball executives would be those who could hit the curve ball or judge fly balls best. I believe we're talking about better things here. Naturally someone who has had a lot of experience against the curve ball is likely to be better at hitting it. If he's judged a lot of fly balls, he's more likely be able to avoid misjudging them. If he's experienced a lot of bad hops, he's probably better able to field them. But that doesn't make him better at knowing which pitcher, batter or fielder to use. I believe it helps him judge pitchers, batters or fielders, but it's just one of many factors in doing so. When Farhan makes a decision about a player, if he's smart (and clearly he is), he uses all the input he can get his hands on. That means tons of both scouting reports and analytics. When he reads scouting reports, they differ -- anywhere from minor differences to significant differences of opinion. Farhan has to be able to sort out what he reads and hears, no doubt asking his scouts what they see that leads them to their conclusion, and why it differs with someone else's conclusion. He ultimately must sort the wheat from the chaffe. Which is one area where the analytics come in. The scouting reports are opinions; the analytics are facts. That's not to say that the analytics can't "disagree" or be confusing too. They're simply objective information that can help clarify just how dark the shades of gray are. Give me two guys studying baseball who are equal in every other way, and I'll take the guy who has hit the curve ball and shagged the fly. Those things may give him the advantage. But they are simply two of many, many things when it comes to understanding baseball. If you and I were trying to teach someone to hit a curve ball, you would have a huge advantage over me, one I doubt I could overcome. But when it comes to judging two players, I might have the advantage because knowing how to hit a curve ball would be just one small point. As an example, let's look at how we judged the fielding of Brandon Crawford compared to that of Andrelton Simmons. I wouund up agreeing with just about every method of judging -- they eye test, the metrics, the opinions of others, the actual results. Do I think at any point in my life I could ever field a ground ball better than you? Well, I'm older, so maybe when I was eight and you were four. But, no, when age wasn't the primary factor, you were by far the better fielder of ground balls. It's possible I could keep up with you in short-hopping a throw, but that would have been it -- if even that. But IMO I have done a better job of comparing the fielding of Crawford and Simmons than you have because I've studied the subject far more closely and objectively. I've relied on input from as many areas as I could get my hands on, while you seemed to have based your judgment on your knowledge of how a ball should be fielded and a relatively small number of plays you have seen Simmons make. There are areas of baseball knowledge I'll never catch you in. But there are also other areas in which you're unlikely to catch up with me. Let's take a look at say Austin Slater and Kelby Tomlinson as hitters. Each had early success, and you were more impressed than I. We see which direction Kelby went, and unless Austin is able to benefit from his new, more elevated swing, he's likely to remain somewhere between a fourth outfielder and a AAAA player. You know WAY more about hitting than I do. That doesn't mean though that you are better able to evaluate Austin and Kelby as hitters than I. Your ground up knowledge doesn't guarantee you know more about baseball strategy than I. It means there are areas of baseball that you know better than I ever will. It doesn't mean there aren't other areas I know better than you ever will. Your having played baseball at a higher level than I gives you an advantage. It doesn't give you an insurmountable one. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments#ixzz5gSjQAah6
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 24, 2019 11:06:46 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 24, 2019 11:34:54 GMT -5
Remember our arguments about chemistry? For the longest time, Roger argued that there was no such thing. Rog -- One of the things that is most frustrating to me is that people here often form their opinions on other than facts. You have ignored that I began studying sports chemistry back in the mid-fifties when the Warriors won their first World Championship in the Bay Area despite having a team that hadn't made the playoffs the previous season and had lost at least three of their important players, including future Hall of Famer Nate Thurmond, former college basketball Player of the Year Cazzie Russell, and present Warriors color announcer Jim Barnett. You ignore that I haven't said that there is no such thing as chemistry (or have I been studying simply an illusion for over four decades) but rather said that I don't know how to measure its effects. It came to me last night that Boagie keeps making foolish statements that I automatically think something is right if one of my sabermetric "heroes" believes it. He thinks I believe Joe Maddon was right to have Javier Baez bunt with two strikes simply because it was Joe Maddon who made the decision. He ignored that I didn't say Maddon was right but rather than I said he might not have been wrong, but more importantly, he ignored that I was highly criticial of how Maddon overused his closer Aroldis Chapman. Darn near cost him and the Cubs the series, and in reality, he went against the analytics when he did so. You guys believe you know what I'm thinking and why I'm thinking it, but in reality you don't. Boagie thinks I persist in showing that Andrelton Simmons is a better fielder than Brandon Crawford because I underrated Brandon as a hitter when I evaluated him at San Jose. That ignores that while Brandon's peak in 2015 and 2016 was clearly more than I was expecting, his overall hitting (.252 average with a .713 OPS) has been pretty close to the .250/.700 or so I expected. It ignores that whether Brandon is a better fielder than Simmons or not has nothing to do with how good a hitter he is. It ignores that I've said that in many ways Brandon is my favorite Giant and that both on and apparently off the field, he is probably more like me than any other Giant. I said that Brandon wasn't going to be a great hitter despite hitting .371 with a 1.045 OPS at San Jose. I was surprised when I saw how close those numbers were to the .381/1.073 Vladimir Guerrero, Jr. put up in the minors last season. Guerrero is likely to become one of the best hitters in history, whereas Brandon has become more or less an average major league hitter. Somehow you got it in your head, Boagie, that I said Brandon would never make it in the major leagues. Why would anyone in his right mind -- let alone someone like me who has an analytical bent -- say a good-fielding shortstop who could hit .371 would never make it in the major leagues? If someone says that a guy hitting .371 won't become more than an average major league hitter, that's a reasonably bold statement in its own right. Why would he need to go over the edge of reason? You guys continue to write things that show you don't truly understand my thinking. Randy is by far the worst. As I have repeatedly said, I'm never as dumb as when my words come out of Randy's mouth. If your knowledge of baseball from the ground up makes it impossible for me to know as much about baseball as you, Boly, why is it that I was able to avoid being taken in by the 2016 Giants as you were? There are things you know that I never will. There are things I know that you likely won't. There is so much to know about baseball that no one can know it all -- not even Willie Mays or Bruce Bochy or Brian Sabean or Farhan Zaidi. Let alone you or I. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5102/comments?page=1#ixzz5gSuprd6S
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Feb 24, 2019 11:36:10 GMT -5
|
|