"Intangibles"

[sharksrog]

I haven't finished it yet, but Joan Ryan's book about team chemistry has been fascinating. As I suspected, it delves into the Giants a fair amount.

Ryan has come up with the seven "elements" that contribute to team chemistry and has examples from the Giants of most:

The Sparkplug -- Hunter Pence

The Sage -- Tim Hudson

The Kid -- Matt Duffy

The Enforcer -- Javier Lopez

The Buddy -- Mark DeRosa

The Warrior -- Barry Bonds, Pat Burrell

The Jester -- (No specific player identified from the Giants, although a surprise -- Yasiel Puig -- was identified from the Dodgers)


We certainly don't think of Barry Bonds or Yasiel Puig when it comes to team chemistry, but it appears they filled a role that may have at least partially offset their negative attributes. Aubrey Huff, who abused drugs and his wife, is probably one of the worst humans baseball has seen, but while he had been considered a cancer for most of his career, he was accepted by the Giants' players -- in part because of his literal Huff and puff inside the park home run and his willingness to laugh with them about it, and some of their players even asked him for advice. As Huff put it, he was the one who was always looking elsewhere, and suddenly the Giants' players were coming to HIM.

You can likely get the book at your library as I did. I'm about 60% through the book, and thus far it's been well worth the time.

If I were to boil team chemistry down to two words based on what I've read in the book, they would be acceptance and trust.

Ryan's book has come from a combination of talking with players, managers and coaches involved with sports and with psychologists from various fields.

Remember, the Giants are now strong in team chemistry as well as analytics. That's a great combination.

Those who mistrusted Farhan initially did so out of bias, not logic.

[reedonly]

Michael Morse.

[klaiggeb]

First of all, Rodger, I will confess when I I saw that Farmhand was who we hired, I was biased for reasons I will not share here nor in writing ever.

But I gave him a chance, and now in my opinion he's the best GM we have ever had.

But I disagree with the books explanation that Chemistry is the result of trust and confidence. It is so much more then confidence and Trust. So much more.

Chemistry may include those things, but most of chemistry happens at the subliminal level.

Here's an example;

It's been almost twenty years now but in the study I read it had to do with World Cup soccer games, and soccer games in general, wondering why there was so much violence taking place in the stands!

From their study it turns out that those who could not get seats in the grandstands we're stuck and squished into gigantic crowds.

Thus, if you left your place to go take a potty break, you lost your place.

What the fans began to do, women included, was roll up a magazine or a newspaper, and use it as a urination tube right where they stood.

What they found out was when the pheromones hit the atmosphere it reacted in a violent matter on some people whose body chemistry reacted violently to the pheromones in the air.

What resulted was massive fights among fans!

Chemistry is kind of like that in my opinion. It deals with pheromones.

Ever meet anybody for the first time and realize at that point you just don't like them?

Or how about meeting someone for the first time and realizing that you do like them and that you can be friends?

The study said that was pheromones. And pheromones react differently upon different people.

Since I believe chemistry comes from or is the result of pheromones, that explains why some teams are closer than others and some players are closer than others.

Certainly is not true 100% of the time, but based upon my history, and the study I saw, I believe.

[sharksrog]

Who has rigged this board to write "Farmhand" when one puts in Zaidi's first name? Can you get after that, Matt?

[sharksrog]

I agree that pheromones may be involved in chemistry. The book refers to a specific hormone, Oxytocin.

I think you would enjoy the book, Boly. I thought of you when I read many of the things that were covered in it. It certainly backs up your point of view, and I think you would learn a lot from it. I know I have -- and I've really enjoyed it, particularly when it honed in on the Giants.

[sharksrog]

I hope that we have all learned that it is wrong to pre-judge people. Although not every generality is wrong, there are exceptions to virtually every generality. If we pre-judge someone via generality, we have two ways to be wrong:

First, the generality may be wrong.

Second, even if it is right, there are virtually always exceptions.

Hey, virtually all of us can be wrong with our first impressions. There is a particular politician I initially supported (in part because I was a member of his party; in part because I liked the idea of what I thought he represented; in part because we came from a similar place). Once I learned some facts, I changed my opinion. And the more facts I learn, the more I realize how wrong I was at first.

Much different case, but kind of like how you changed your opinion of Mr Zaidi once you began basing it on the facts.

I agree with you that Zaidi (I won't say F,A,R,H,A,N because it would become "Farmhand") has become the best GM the Giants have had (although he still lacks the longevity and for that matter the rings of Brian Sabean), and I am happy that I believed in him from the very beginning. That's because I studied him before forming a judgment. Certainly there was no guarantee he would perform well, but the evidence strongly suggested he had a fine chance to be successful.

I wasn't as sold initially on Kapler, but since Mr. Zaidi hired him and I trusted Mr. Zaidi, I was optimistic. I will say that Mr. Zaidi has EXCEEDED my expectations. But remember, this is a guy whose graduate economics teacher believed he could become one of the world's top economists. Baseball is relative child's play in comparison.

The Giants also had good GM's in Brian Sabean and Al Rosen. I remember my dad's being excited about each one, although he died a few months before Brian took over. But he knew a lot about Brian, and he knew prior to his death that Sabaean would be taking over. As I have mentioned, that's why I wasn't worried about the Matt Williams trade, although most Giants fans hated it.

Best trade the Giants have ever made? Maybe Kevin Mitchell, right? And of course the Williams trade worked out well too. I wonder if the Giants saw the true potential of Jeff Kent, or if there was some luck involved. I believe Kent was considered by the Giants as the #2 guy they got in the trade, which is why I wonder if they truly saw what he might become and believed he would.

As an aside, some of the marginal prospects Mr. Zaidi has acquired didn't last long or perform well with the Giants, but some of them went on to success with other teams. He's clearly human, but he does seem to have an eye for talent.

I think the Giants also have a gem in Scott Harris, although I don't know nearly as much about him as I know about Mr. Zaidi. I'm sorry that Ron Wotus is leaving. It's too bad he never got a chance to manage. Seems like he did a lot to help the fielding of several Giants infielders though.

Speaking of fielding by infielders, I think Omar Vizquel's ability to deflect a ground ball from his glove to his throwing hand is one of the best skills any infielder has ever had. To me, it's a little tough to properly evaluate his full greatness, but think how good he would have been had he possessed a true shortstop's arm. Think if he had enjoyed a true cannon.

Omar was truly a dancer in the infield. He was among the greatest shortstops ever, and with a great arm, might have been the very best. Think of him, for instance, with Brandon Crawford's arm.

Anyone remember how good his instincts were? I really don't. Certainly instincts are a strength in Brandon's game. I do remember watching Omar playing catch and wondering if he got the ball into his throwing hand via an optical illusion. I now realize that like Willie Mays' catch in the 1954 World Series, it wasn't an illusion.

We often talk about how the game has changed over the years. Aren't two of the most amazing stats in baseball history Tris Speaker's 449 outfield assists and 143 outfield double plays? Six of Speaker's double plays were unassisted. We know how amazing Willie Mays' 196 outfield assists and 60 outfield double plays were, and yet Speaker more than doubled those figures. Like Mays, Speaker was an expert at playing shallow, and playing primarily in the dead ball era allowed Speaker to play even shallower than Willie, as the unassisted double plays showed. I believe Speaker also made a few put outs taking pitchers' pickoff throws at second base. Certainly a runner wouldn't expect a CENTER FIELDER to sneak in behind him.

[sharksrog]

Based on their runs scored and runs yielded, the Giants truly were an outstanding team. They scored 804 runs and yielded 594, which translated to a 103-59 record, which would still have been one heck of a season. Some people use the difference between a team's actual record and its Pythagorean record to determine either a team's chemistry or the value of its manager.

I think the Giants outperformed expectations because many players had good years, because a lot of pickups came through, because the Giants had excellent chemistry, because Kapler and his coaching staff did a fabulous job, and because of the magic, which may have involved a little luck. As one might expect with such an outperformance, a LOT of things went right. Aside from Johnny Cueto and Reyes Moronta, not too many things went wrong.

[klaiggeb]

Oct 29, 2021 16:00:46 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

I agree that pheromones may be involved in chemistry. The book refers to a specific hormone, Oxytocin.

I think you would enjoy the book, Boly. I thought of you when I read many of the things that were covered in it. It certainly backs up your point of view, and I think you would learn a lot from it. I know I have -- and I've really enjoyed it, particularly when it honed in on the Giants.

thanks for thinking of me, but those are not the kinds of books I enjoy.

I read, and I read a lot... for fun and entertainment.

I don't normally read stuff other than fiction.

Killing the Mob would be one of my rare exceptions.


But I asked you not to try and change my mind... and from the sound of this post and a couple of others, you're still trying to do that.

Please, respond once, and then let a topic die.

[sharksrog]

I used to read almost entirely the sports section and some fiction, including short stories. Then about 46 years ago I started studying team chemistry, although back then that wasn't as easy to do as it is today.

About 30 years ago or so I realized there was more to baseball than I had come across. I began learning more about baseball and have probably learned more since then than I had before.

About five or six years ago I began studying politics. What I've learned has saddened me, but I've learned much more than I ever knew before.

I understand the fun of reading fiction, and I still read a lot of it. But I've long been extremely interested in sports, and I truly enjoy reading about them. Reading about team chemistry might not be inherently as enjoyable, but Joan Ryan's book is on a top I'm interested in, and it's filled with a lot of information on the Giants.

You recommended I read "My Giants" by Russ Hodges. I was disappointed in it, and I think it may have been a little different than you remembered it, but even though it was hard to find, I'm glad I read it. I definitely learned something from it, and it's almost always fun to go back in time with the Giants.

When we stop learning, our minds become stagnant. We're more vulnerable to lies and brainwashing. So I like to keep learning and hope I don't lose that urge anytime soon.

You asked me not to try to change your mind on the opener, and while I've continued to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the opener and have admitted that the opener is a tactic, not something to be used very game, I've tried to respect that.

But to say to respond once to something and then let a topic die seems rather closed-minded to me. When you and Candee discuss topics, do you and she respond just once and then let the topic die? To me, that seems dull and doesn't provide much learning. It's particularly frustrating when one gives facts but doesn't get them in return. It's particularly frustrating when responses aren't logical.

I enter into discussions either to get across a point of view and/or to learn. Usually both. Probably the biggest way I've learned from this board is the study I do when my point of view is challenged or when I read something someone else wrote and wonder if it is true. Sometimes I learn from others. Mark is particularly good at analyzing situations and explaining them well.

I get the impression that Mark's mind is open, but I don't get that feeling from all the posters here. I get the impression Mark is logical, but I don't see that as being universal across the board.

I'm glad, for instance Boly, that your mind is now open toward Mr. Zaidi. But it wasn't in the beginning, and it should have been. I don't feel your mind is open with regard to openers or modern baseball.

To me, wise people want to find the truth and learn from it. Today we see far too much covering up of the truth. We hear far too many lies.

Wise people keep their minds open and continue to learn. They revere truth and logic. They realize that when a topic dies, the learning stops.

[klaiggeb]

Wise people keep their minds open? Rodger, what an arrogant thing to say!

You are entitled to your opinions as is everybody else.

Stop trying to educate everybody that has a different perspective than you do.

That entire arrogant statement comes across as a lecture, and I don't need you to lecture me.

When someone doesn't agree with you, you get pushy and you act as if you're smarter than everybody else, and I for one take offense at that!

Grow up and stop behaving like you are the smartest person in the room!

[reedonly]

Oct 30, 2021 20:14:41 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

Wise people keep their minds open? Rodger, what an arrogant thing to say!

You are entitled to your opinions as is everybody else.

Stop trying to educate everybody that has a different perspective than you do.

That entire arrogant statement comes across as a lecture, and I don't need you to lecture me.

When someone doesn't agree with you, you get pushy and you act as if you're smarter than everybody else, and I for one take offense at that!

Grow up and stop behaving like you are the smartest person in the room!

Concur with boly.  Not a good look.

[Islandboagie]

I too agree, but I don't expect Rog to change his tune. it hasn't happened in the 20 years I've known him and pleaded with him, don't hold your breath on him changing now. I find it ironic that he preaches an open mind, when he's the most close minded to other opinions that are not his.

Boly has an open mind about many things, but he also has opinions. Boly has changed his mind many times about certain players, managers, coaches, the progression and changes in baseball and the use of certain statistics. He's admitted to being wrong, and that's the exact nature of having an open mind.

Having an open mind doesn't mean you also can't have opinions you stand behind. Boly merely requires some form of viable evidence he can see for himself before he changes an opinion he is passionate about. Looking for and recognizing that evidence is having an open mind, and I know he does that regularly without being persuaded to do so. Boly doesn't need to be forced into his admission by someone else, he addresses it here with a new post clearly saying he was wrong and he has changed his mind. He has a more direct approach to admitting he was wrong than anyone here, by a longshot.

I also know Boly is a traditionalist, much like myself, who doesn't like to see drastic fundamental changes to the game he loves. He fears, like I do, that it will diminish his love for the game...I think most of us can relate to that.

Yes, Boly has a few issues he cannot bend on, but those are his opinions he feels passionate about, and like everyone else here, he's allowed to have his opinions and not be criticized on a personal level. But I know, if he sees evidence to the contrary, he will be the first to acknowledge that.

I've had disagreements with just about everyone here, even Boly. But after a few posts back and forth, most of us let it go and move on, realizing that the other person won't change their opinion. And I think many of us don't believe it's our mission in life to change someone's mind, just to merely present our own. It obviously feels better when it's agreed on by others, but if it's not, so what? There are more important things in life.

I like to think none of us here lack the self esteem it takes to allow our opinions to remain unpopular. Only a true narcissist would need their opinion validated by demanding everyone agree with it. Most everyone here is not like that, and I'm thankful we can continue to have an open forum to discuss the Giants and not feel we are pressured by anyone else to think a certain way, even when some try.

[sharksrog]

I don't enjoy offending you, Boly, but if saying wise people keep their minds open offends you, then it might mean that the truth hurts you rather than helping as it should to remind you of the truth.

I've never once said I'm smarter than you or anyone else here. Until now I haven't even mentioned that you misspell my name. If my name were Rodger, wouldn't my screenname likely be Sharksrodg?

The two things I do though are I study subjects such as the Giants and baseball more deeply than you do, and I work hard to keep an open mind.

When the Giants hired Mr. Zaidi, I studied all I could find about him. After all, he had become the future of the Giants, a topic that was highly important to me. I was highly encouraged by what I found. You made a heinous pre-judgment of him that was based on a single fact that had nothing to do with baseball.

You eventually opened your mind to Mr. Zaidi and now consider him the best Giants GM ever. I applaud you for that. But you were foolish to pre-judge him at all, let alone based on something that had nothing to do with baseball. Your pre-judgment showed a huge character flaw (and you're a good person with a good heart IMO, the type of person who is far too good for that damaging a flaw).

If you said to me that wise people keep their minds open, I would cheerfully agree with you and say that while I'm human, I work as hard as I can to keep mine open. That's part of the reason I study so much the things that I value. I like to make intelligent choices based on facts and logic, and today there are so many lies out there, one has to work extra hard to keep his mind open.

For an important perspective, I would highly recommend the movie "The Good Lie," playing now on HBO. Barbara and I watched it last night, followed by the movie "Machine Gun Preacher," a much harsher movie that covered similar things. The former movie was highly encouraging, while the latter was hard for me to take. But both movies taught and moved us a lot, as they would likely do for you and Candee.

That said, if you are going to watch just one movie the rest of your life, let it be the 90-minute movie, "Four Hours at the Capitol." (You can see from the time of the movie that they don't show every minute of every hour, and the four hours are approximate anyway. But the movie went out of its way to let the video and the commentary -- from people on both sides of the issue, as it should be -- tell the story.

If you don't have the five or five and a half hours or so to watch these three movies, take a few minutes to read their reviews. But if possible, at least take an hour and a half to watch the Capitol movie. I would say I learned more from it than I've learned from scores of hours of other study. In particular, I learned how patriotic the thousands as the Capitol believed they were being. They truly and unabashedly felt like patriots! And unlike so much that is out there, the movie goes out of its way to present a full and objective picture.

Maybe I HAVE been guilty here of preaching. But the movie goes out of its way to let just the video and participants tell the story. Ignore me and watch the movie instead. And if you like Ron Howard and Reese Witherspoon, watch "The Good Lie" as well. Not many lies are good, but "The Good Lie" was VERY good.

[sharksrog]

One of the things I have learned from the book is the importance of letting guys who are possible problems know they are accepted. The Giants have been highly successful in that with both Aubrey Huff (at least initially) and Kevin Mitchell. Mike Krukow now says that he believes Chris Brown was a malingerer because of a fear of failure. Had he or the Giants recognized that at the time, perhaps Brown could have been saved. He was, after all, am All-Star. My dad sat next to Brown at a game at Candlestick and said he was a pretty nice guy. Chris's story ended very poorly though, both baseball-wise and life-wise.

And at least he was part of the trade that enabled the Giants to acquire Dave Davecky, Craig Lefferts and Mitchell.

Ryan says that Giants team of the late 80's had the best chemistry she's seen.

[sharksrog]

Which present Giants player would we say is the best for team chemistry right now? I suspect looking to Willie Mac Award winners provides a clue, although that may not be the total answer either. I don't know the answer to my question, but I'm curious as to what others think.

[klaiggeb]

Oct 31, 2021 12:26:22 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

I don't enjoy offending you, Boly, but if saying wise people keep their minds open offends you, then it might mean that the truth hurts you rather than helping as it should to remind you of the truth.

I've never once said I'm smarter than you or anyone else here. Until now I haven't even mentioned that you misspell my name. If my name were Rodger, wouldn't my screenname likely be Sharksrodg?

The two things I do though are I study subjects such as the Giants and baseball more deeply than you do, and I work hard to keep an open mind.

When the Giants hired Mr. Zaidi, I studied all I could find about him. After all, he had become the future of the Giants, a topic that was highly important to me. I was highly encouraged by what I found. You made a heinous pre-judgment of him that was based on a single fact that had nothing to do with baseball.

You eventually opened your mind to Mr. Zaidi and now consider him the best Giants GM ever. I applaud you for that. But you were foolish to pre-judge him at all, let alone based on something that had nothing to do with baseball. Your pre-judgment showed a huge character flaw (and you're a good person with a good heart IMO, the type of person who is far too good for that damaging a flaw).

If you said to me that wise people keep their minds open, I would cheerfully agree with you and say that while I'm human, I work as hard as I can to keep mine open. That's part of the reason I study so much the things that I value. I like to make intelligent choices based on facts and logic, and today there are so many lies out there, one has to work extra hard to keep his mind open.

For an important perspective, I would highly recommend the movie "The Good Lie," playing now on HBO. Barbara and I watched it last night, followed by the movie "Machine Gun Preacher," a much harsher movie that covered similar things. The former movie was highly encouraging, while the latter was hard for me to take. But both movies taught and moved us a lot, as they would likely do for you and Candee.

That said, if you are going to watch just one movie the rest of your life, let it be the 90-minute movie, "Four Hours at the Capitol." (You can see from the time of the movie that they don't show every minute of every hour, and the four hours are approximate anyway. But the movie went out of its way to let the video and the commentary -- from people on both sides of the issue, as it should be -- tell the story.

If you don't have the five or five and a half hours or so to watch these three movies, take a few minutes to read their reviews. But if possible, at least take an hour and a half to watch the Capitol movie. I would say I learned more from it than I've learned from scores of hours of other study. In particular, I learned how patriotic the thousands as the Capitol believed they were being. They truly and unabashedly felt like patriots! And unlike so much that is out there, the movie goes out of its way to present a full and objective picture.

Maybe I HAVE been guilty here of preaching. But the movie goes out of its way to let just the video and participants tell the story. Ignore me and watch the movie instead. And if you like Ron Howard and Reese Witherspoon, watch "The Good Lie" as well. Not many lies are good, but "The Good Lie" was VERY good.

Roger, it's not so much what you say, but how you say it; the context in which you say it.

That is just one of many things you just don't understand.

You really don't.

Boagie is right; you always talk about "open minds" in others, but you have never, not once, demonstrated that you have one.

You preach, with a holier than thou stance, constantly trying to "educate us," as if we aren't perceptive enough or smart enough to figure out such things on our own.

Here's an example: "I hope that we have all learned that it is wrong to prejudge people."

THAT is a preachy and an arrogant statement to make.


It's the kind of thing a father or a teacher would say to a misbehaving child.

We are adults, Roger, Adults, not children!

It offends me...angers me when you treat us like children!

It is a statement like that that makes me say that you think you are the smartest person in the room.

And if that first statement/lecture wasn't enough, you compound it by informing us that there are two ways to be wrong!

But you don't stop there!

You take your holier than thou attitude another step further when you explain/lecture to us saying that you "studied him before forming an opinion."

You just assume that no one else did the same thing.

You assume that the other party has no reasons for their opinions!

And you don't see the arrogance in that?

Let's take it still one step further. Here's another of your arrogant, preachy, I'm the smartest guy in the room statements:

"I like to make intelligent choices based on facts and logic..."

What? No one else does that?


Are you the only one who makes choices based upon facts and logic?

Oh. Wait.

Silly me.

We can't make intelligent choices based upon facts and logic because we might use facts and logic that differ from your facts and logic!

Sheesh!

Roger, open you eyes.

For once, make a solid evaluation of what you say and how you say it.

Until then, Vaya con Dios.

[sharksrog]

I don't assume that people have no good reasons for their opinions, but I've corresponded a lot with both you and Boagie, and neither of you has been very forthcoming at answering my questions. When you guys do answer, it is usually with more of your opinions to back up your original opinion. We get very few facts from you and not a whole lot more logic.

Not only do I not assume people don't have good reasons for their opinions, I keep asking them to explain themselves. That seems to be a bigger problem for them politically than here on the Giants board.

But let's look at a few things Giants and baseball:

. You pre-judged Farhan for something that had nothing to do with baseball. You asked me not to tell anyone what that was, and I'm not going to. But I hope you realize how wrong you were to do it.

. You pre-judged the Eduardo Nunez trade without knowing about the players the Giants received. Why use the word "enema" when you have very little knowledge about what the Giants received?

. You talk about how one who hasn't played ball beyond high school can't understand certain things. I agree with you that they can't -- just as you can't understand things those who have played organized baseball or particularly in the major leagues can't understand certain things they can understand. It's just that most of those things aren't all that important. Mr. Zaidi hasn't played ball beyond high school, but he knows many more times as much about baseball and the Giants as you or any of us know.

. You say you believe Roger Craig was the best manager the Giants have had, yet you apparently had forgotten that he had players bunt with two strikes. Thus when we discussed whether Javier Baez's two-strike bunt was automatically wrong, you said it was -- because no one (except pitchers) bunts with two strikes. As I said at the time, I was virtually certain that Craig had done so. I later read that he, Don Zimmer and another solid manager I can't remember had had non-pitchers do so.

You say you might use facts that are different than mine. That's untrue, since facts don't belong to anyone. They are simply facts. I think the difference though is that if I state something as a fact, while I make mistakes too, it is usually a fact. When you state something as a fact, it is often merely an opinion -- which you have backed up with yet another opinion.

I'm willing to answer any question you ask. But you guys seem to run away from a lot of the tough questions.

A person doesn't have to agree with me to make a good argument. But he does need to use facts and logic in order to do so.

Perhaps if you want me to learn, you can give me some examples of arguments you're made with facts and logic in which I didn't give you guys proper credit for doing so. At least as much as anyone on this board, I want to learn. I'd love to learn a lot from you guys.

[klaiggeb]

Way to cherry-pick things that I said, and take them out of context.

At the time I made the statements, and or opinions, I gave my reasons for them.

I was wrong aboutfarhan I was wrong about Nunez, and I said so.

But just like always, you hear what you want to hear, you see what you want to see, and you disregard the rest.

There was a reason I blocked you from emails, and with this post, I will not respond to any of your posts ever again.

It is simply not worth the aggravation.

God bless, and I wish you well.

[Islandboagie]

I explained my point politically many times in my emails with you, Rog. I used facts and sent you links to references corroborating my my facts. Just because I didn't respond 27 times a day like you wanted, doesn't mean I didn't respond with facts supporting my opinion.

I work for a living, Rog, I have obligations, friends and a girlfriend that is more important to me than drooling over a computer all day debating about politics. My life is not enriched by debating online all day, I'm glad you enjoy it, but you have to understand not everyone is like you. I explained that I didn't have time to read it all and politely asked you to keep it to one email a day, which you agreed to and surprisingly kept to your word for about a week, maybe two. After that you went back to flooding my inbox with multiple emails a day, then more..and more. After trying to be nice and plead with you, I couldn't deal with it anymore so I marked your emails as junk mail. That's where they went, straight to my junk folder. After about a month I was curious to see if you were still emailing me after no response for a long time, and there they were. One after another, of you spouting politics. This is when I started to see that maybe you have a problem that's deeper than politics and baseball. You just don't let up. I tried being nice, I tried to reason with you, but it just didn't sink in with you.

This is why I can understand Boly's frustration with you not letting it go. You have some psychological problem that makes you refuse to let it go. I think you really need to seek help.

You constantly accuse others for not having an open mind...well I'm asking you to open your mind to the destructive behavior that the people that know you well here have pointed out to you. Marc did, Don did. Randy, Boly and I have. When so many people around you feel the same way, don't you think there may be something to it?

Open your mind, Rog. This has been the biggest elephant in the room on this board for 20 years, Rog, and you're completely blind to it. So blind to it that you tell others to open their mind. It's like your psyche is trying to trick yourself into believing everyone else is guilty of your biggest issues. It wouldn't hurt to sit down with someone and discuss it, just to see if there's more to it. Boly has met you in person and swears up and down you're a good person. I believe him. I believe you when you say that you don't mean to upset Boly, or me, or Don and Marc. These are the facts, you have the evidence in front of you. Open your mind, Rog.

Seek help, Rog. I really hope you do.

[sharksrog]

Thanks for admitting you were wrong aboutfarhan and Nunez, Boly. MY question though is, have you learned to stop prejudging? Have you realized that while you are correct that you understand things about baseball someone who hasn't played beyond high school, that those things aren't all that important -- as the Giants' new president has demonstrated? If so, we're good about those things.

My frustration though comes on things like the opener. Because it's a new concept, you just can't seem to be bothered with it. It's just another tactic in the ever-changing world of baseball. It's not something to use every day, but it allowed the Dodgers to gain an advantage in game 5 of the NLDS. That advantage was clearly illustrated when the Giants were forced with two outs in the ninth to use a right-handed batter who had gone 0 for 17 in his career against the great Max Scherzer when had the Dodgers not used two openers, the Giants likely could have had a far better (although still difficult) matchup with lefty-hitting Tommy La Stella or possibly Mike Yastrzemski.

Reed made a good point that the Giants DID have better lefty matchups earlier with Crawford and Wade. But all season long one of the Giants' advantages was the skillful manner in which Gabe Kapler got the Giants strong matchups in the platoon game. Not only did Late Night LaMonte get a handful of key late hits taking advantage of those matchups, Kapler also wrung out a couple of key late hits when he PINCH HIT for LaMonte with the right-handed hitting Donovan Solano when a left was brought in to face LaMonte.

Kapler's excellent job with matchups was a huge asset to the Giants in 2021. When the Dodgers announced they were using the opener, shrewd fans could see that an overreaction from Kapler could present matchup problems late in the game, taking away an important Giants advantage. Sure enough, Gabe did overreact, and the game ended with the Giants at a disadvantage as a result.

But because he apparently doesn't understand the possible advantages of the opener (apparently because he's closed his mind to it), Boly not only didn't foresee the possible advantage the Dodgers would gain with the opener, even after the game ended with that advantage clearly in play, Boly still doesn't seem to understand the possible advantages of the opener. Mark spoke about why he likes the concept of the opener, and Mark is rarely wrong here. But Boly still refuses to open his eyes.

I appreciate that you have admitted to being wrong in the past because you have prejudged, Boly, but you don't seem to have learned from your mistakes.

On the political board, I mentioned that I would bet my life that not all the things you posted in what you titled a "must read" were true. Mark was far harsher (and perhaps better informed) than I. He said NONE of what you posted was true. NONE of it. I would have thought that at least some of it must have been, but it appears Mark was better informed than I. As for you, you went mute on the subject.

Matt said above that he has explained his "point politically many times to (me)," but he STILL hasn't answered most of my questions, and most of the "answers" he gave me were either simply opinions, not facts, or were opinions backed up by extremist comments, not facts. You know, kind of like the "facts" that Boly presented but which I questioned as not being entirely true and Mark flat-out stated were ALL false.

You showed yourself, Matt, when you say "Just because (you) didn't respond 27 times a day like (I) wanted doesn't mean that (you) didn't respond with facts supporting (your) opinion." I never asked you to respond 27 times a day. I have, however, implored you many times to respond, and you have failed me. As I have explained to you, I'm trying to learn why people like you feel the way they do, but even though probably a majority of the people I know and many I come across feel the way you do, I have yet to find anyone answer my questions with facts.

Without getting into the political issues here, as I have stated on the political side either the Supreme Court is living a lie, or you are. You've given me virtually no answers, and the only answer Boly has given me is fear, which is a horrible answer that if accurate sends a horrible message.

[klaiggeb]

Oct 31, 2021 20:34:43 GMT -5 Islandboagie said:

I explained my point politically many times in my emails with you, Rog. I used facts and sent you links to references corroborating my my facts. Just because I didn't respond 27 times a day like you wanted, doesn't mean I didn't respond with facts supporting my opinion.

I work for a living, Rog, I have obligations, friends and a girlfriend that is more important to me than drooling over a computer all day debating about politics. My life is not enriched by debating online all day, I'm glad you enjoy it, but you have to understand not everyone is like you. I explained that I didn't have time to read it all and politely asked you to keep it to one email a day, which you agreed to and surprisingly kept to your word for about a week, maybe two. After that you went back to flooding my inbox with multiple emails a day, then more..and more. After trying to be nice and plead with you, I couldn't deal with it anymore so I marked your emails as junk mail. That's where they went, straight to my junk folder. After about a month I was curious to see if you were still emailing me after no response for a long time, and there they were. One after another, of you spouting politics. This is when I started to see that maybe you have a problem that's deeper than politics and baseball. You just don't let up. I tried being nice, I tried to reason with you, but it just didn't sink in with you.

This is why I can understand Boly's frustration with you not letting it go. You have some psychological problem that makes you refuse to let it go. I think you really need to seek help.

You constantly accuse others for not having an open mind...well I'm asking you to open your mind to the destructive behavior that the people that know you well here have pointed out to you. Marc did, Don did. Randy, Boly and I have. When so many people around you feel the same way, don't you think there may be something to it?

Open your mind, Rog. This has been the biggest elephant in the room on this board for 20 years, Rog, and you're completely blind to it. So blind to it that you tell others to open their mind. It's like your psyche is trying to trick yourself into believing everyone else is guilty of your biggest issues. It wouldn't hurt to sit down with someone and discuss it, just to see if there's more to it. Boly has met you in person and swears up and down you're a good person. I believe him. I believe you when you say that you don't mean to upset Boly, or me, or Don and Marc. These are the facts, you have the evidence in front of you. Open your mind, Rog.

Seek help, Rog. I really hope you do.

Thank you for posting all of this, boagie, especially the parts about Don and Marc.

I would also add Allen to that list.



He infuriated Marc with whom I frequently communicated in instant message conversations, a large portion of which was him venting off steam about Roger.

It reminded me that on at least 2 occasions, that he, as board monitor, shut down one board and established another just to get away from him.

Same with Don. Drove him crazy! Right up the cookie-boo tree.


I really don't like doing what I felt I had to do with my post, boagie.

I really don't.

It gave me no pleasure at all.

I agonized over every word, and then spent the next day in deep introspection wondering if I did the right thing.

In the end, I decided that I did; that I really had no other choice because the whole situation with him was starting up all over again.


When you recounted all of the emails you received from Rog, it reminded me so very much of my situation.

I, too, asked him for only an email or two a day.

And as you said, for a week or so, that worked.

Then it started up all over again.

He couldn't and wouldn't let it go regardless of how many times I respectfully asked him to stop.

And I was respectful and polite until I couldn't take it any more.

It always had to be "one more" post. One more comment. One more attempt to show me the error of my way of thinking.

He had to have the last word.

He my opinion, he had to be right.

It got so bad it was upsetting my personal life.

I was edgy, crabby, had trouble sleeping, and finally, it got so bad my wife begged me to cut off communication with Rodger; something she had never done before and has never done since.

I really wish in all of my heart that it hadn't come to this. I really do.

At heart, Roger is a nice guy.

In the end, I think you are right; he does need help.

I just can't be the one trying to provide that help anymore....

Thank you again, boagie for summing things up so eloquently.

[sharksrog]

If you guys want to help me, answer the questions I have asked with truth and logic. Thanks.

The last thing I want do do is bother you guys, but I do want to try to get you guys to think. I think the one thing that bothers me the most is how so many people can ignore facts. It's far from just you two guys. But, Matt, you in particular are the guy I'm hoping can provide me with facts and logic that show why you feel the way you do. But it's been kind of like Boly's "Must Read" post on the political board: I'm not sure Mark is 100% correct when he says that everything Boly posted there was wrong, but I felt strongly enough after reading it that not EVERYTHING was correct that I posted that I would bet my life not everything Boly posted was factual.

You mostly don't reply, Matt, and when you do, you seem to support your opinions with other opinions or with slanted articles. I try to read both sides of the argument, and from what you now and Boly formally send me in support of your opinions, it doesn't appear that you do. I don't care much for CNN, but I try to balance Fox with MSNBC. I try to read written sources that are considered politically neutral or as close to it as possible, but when I read or watch something that I feel is slanted in one direction or the other, I try to balance it by studying something from the other direction. When I send you things, Matt, I often identify for you their political slant, if any. I feel most comfortable sending you things that are as little slanted as possible.

I have recommended watching "Four Hours at the Capitol." The reviews I've read of it have mostly dovetailed with my own opinion -- that it went out of its way to tell the story with video and with commentary from participants from both sides. The only negative reviews I've seen have felt the documentary wasn't hard-hitting enough, but most feel that working hard to provide both sides of the story was highly worthwhile.

Anyway, I've gone out of my way to provide facts for you guys, but I've been highly disappointed with the lack of facts I've received in return.

[Islandboagie]

I didn't want to talk politics with you in emails anymore, Rog, and I definitely don't want to talk about them here.

I've given you facts, but you don't deem my sources as viable, so you discredit my response. I cannot find any mainstream media source that reports anything positive about Trump, or negative about the Democrats. We saw that leading up to the election with their failure to report on the Hunter Biden story, or really anything that would diminish Joe Biden's reputation - I listed this as another reason I believe the Democrats stole the election. But based on that, I'm incapable of finding a source that you consider liberal mainstream enough, because of that I see no reason to respond anymore. Especially since most of your emails ask anywhere between 5-10 questions..multiple times a day. I've told you I don't have that kind of time.

Political ideologies aside..you've been harassing me for two years about politics and I've asked you politely to stop, and you refuse. A good Christian wouldn't continue to harass someone who's asked politely to cease the constant emails. It's honestly something a deranged person would continue after multiple people have pleaded with that person to let it go.

Now I've asked you here to stop. Especially about anything political. I set up a political board for any discussions about politics...you're welcome to ask questions there, and if I have time I'll give you a response. Keep in mind I'd be more likely to answer one direct question, not 10 questions littered throughout an entire political thesis. This might shock you, but if whatever you send me is more than a few paragraphs I usually just delete it without reading a word. I simple don't have the time to read and respond to something that just makes me lose faith in our government and democracy. Politics really isn't a fun conversation, so it's something I don't fixate on 24/7 like you do. Please respect that.

[sharksrog]

The book helped me to learn a little bit about what likely makes Dave Roberts a good manager. Virtually every day he checks with all his players to see how they're doing, which builds trust and makes them more amenable to listening to him, the coaches and their teammates. He may or may not be a tactical genius, but he seems to listen to his front office, and they're plenty smart.

[sharksrog]

Joan Ryan thanked about 30 Giants' present and former players, coaches, manager and executives in her book, including Brandon Belt, who came up with the title.

[reedonly]

Nov 1, 2021 15:08:41 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

The book helped me to learn a little bit about what likely makes Dave Roberts a good manager. Virtually every day he checks with all his players to see how they're doing, which builds trust and makes them more amenable to listening to him, the coaches and their teammates. He may or may not be a tactical genius, but he seems to listen to his front office, and they're plenty smart.

Heaping praise on the Dodgers again? Our FO is kinda smart too.

[sharksrog]

If you read closely, Reed -- or is that Reed closely, read? -- I believe you will see I have praised the Giants as being as good as any team in any sport in combining analytics and team chemistry, and I've praised them as having the best organization from front office to manager to coaches. That has all been put together by Zaidi.

I posted the above because early on I wrote that I didn't see Dave Roberts as a particularly good manager. But I read in the book that he seems to be pretty good at creating team chemistry.

I don't think I would trade the Giants' front office down through coaches for that of any other team. Their players, yes. But not their management. And now their farm system is becoming one of the best.