The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread

[Elktonnick]

They probably did rely more on stats than they did on human factors, but scouting has always been an important part of both Theo's and Ben's team building process. And is it coincidence that during that period from 2003-2015, the Sox were arguably one of the most successful teams in baseball, having won 3 World Series Championships in that span after not winning one in 86 years? I think not!

 

Again you totally misconstrued what I wrote. I said was that their failures were generally due to not adequately consideration of the human factors. I never mentioned scouting. I never said that they didn't consider scouting. I never said that they were generally failures nor that they weren't successful. What I thought was clear from my post was when they made mistakes it was because that they didn't give adequate consideration to the human factor like the Renteria acquistion ten years ago for example.

[SoxnCycles]

I'm not sure there is a consensus that the moves so far make us a contender in 2016.

 

Adding Price, Kimbrel, Smith and Young should probably add 10 wins. That would take us from 78 wins to 88 wins.

 

A number of people here think we still need to add a good #2 pitcher.

 

If they're right, it means we had to add a #1, a #2 and 2 premier relievers. That's a fair amount of upgrading to the pitching staff.

 

That's only 4.8 mil per win for the new guys.

Sounds like a real bargain.

[Kimmi]

I'm not sure there is a consensus that the moves so far make us a contender in 2016.

 

Adding Price, Kimbrel, Smith and Young should probably add 10 wins. That would take us from 78 wins to 88 wins.

 

A number of people here think we still need to add a good #2 pitcher.

 

If they're right, it means we had to add a #1, a #2 and 2 premier relievers. That's a fair amount of upgrading to the pitching staff.

 

I agree that adding a good #2/3 pitcher would be ideal, but I don't think the Sox need to add one, at least not right now. I think we are contenders as the team stands.

 

Our Pythagorean W-L record last year was 81-81. That's what you should be basing any additions on. So, approximately 10 wins added to 81 puts us at 91 wins. Is that not what would be considered a contender? Even at 88 wins, I think that would be considered a contender.

 

I would also guess that neither Hanley nor Pablo will be in the negative WAR range again. If they are just league average this year, that's 3-4 more wins.

 

No one is arguing that we didn't need pitching upgrades. No one is arguing that our BP needed a major overhaul. But if you think about it, the entire offense was set except for the 4th OF. Dombrowski only had to add one piece to the rotation, albeit a major piece. He added 2 pieces to the pen, again, very significant pieces, but it is now considered one of the best in the league. To me, that says the team was in pretty good shape to begin with.

[Kimmi]

Could it also be because you are in a division where you stole the best pitcher from the #1 team, the #2 team could implode under their collective age, the #3 team isn't that good to begin with and will lose its best starter and hitter, and the #4 team seems intent on a rebuild? I think the sox are considered contenders because they are in a division of crapshoots, don't have to add much offensively, and just added the ace they've needed since dealing Lester and the closer they have needed since Koji remembered his birthdate. The sox were a collection of parts. Shiny parts at that. They were not a team. Dombrowski went out and retooled the pen due to their middling SP depth and strong prospect depth. He added a shutdown ace to the top due to their deep pockets. I can pick out a few teams that would do pretty damn well if you added Kimbrel, Smith, and Price to them.

 

Kim, cut the crap. Ben is gone. He brought in a lot of talent that couldn't play well and demolished a rotation that won a world series and turned it into the laughing stock of baseball. His farm system build will be a huge boon to DD's time in Boston. But his 3 last place finishes surrounding a unicorn WS title cost him his job. Live with it. Get over it. Embrace DD. Move on

 

Does it matter where or how Dombrowski got the pieces, or what the state of the division is? The fact remains that Dombrowski only had to add 3 key pieces to put this team in contention. And adding those 3 key pieces was possible because of the state of the team and the farm system. Ben left this team in pretty darn good shape.

[Dojji]

HE did. In the final analysis CHerington may have done more good than harm. That does not excuse the harm he did however.

[Bellhorn04]

That's only 4.8 mil per win for the new guys.

Sounds like a real bargain.

 

It's not a bargain, but it's pretty much the market rate.

[Kimmi]

I listen to MLB radio daily and live outside the metro Baltimore/Washington area. It was a common enough topic Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it wasn't discussed.

 

BTW I never said it was exclusive to 2015. This has been a longstanding problem with the Nats going on for several years. At the end of 2014 concerns were raised about Matt Williams handling of the bullpen and his pitchers causing resentment in the clubhouse which would explode in 2015 as we all saw. In March of 2014 "The players voting Harper overrated is just a byproduct of his unnecessarily bad reputation." again which exploded after his fight with Papelbon the next year.

 

In January 2015 . This appeared: "While his on-field upside is high, is it reasonable for Mike Rizzo to add the same thing that has hurt the Nats in years past? As a team, these Washington Nationals are affected by clubhouse issues. Look at 2013, when there were constant arguments and even a live exhibition between Jayson Werth and Gio Gonzalez.

 

It’s not right for Mike Rizzo to bring in a guy that could damper the bonds created by last season’s success. What’s done is done, but Yunel Escobar is likely to cause more harm than help." And so true it was.

 

It's possible that something has been said or written that I was just unaware of. That said, I read and research a lot in terms of baseball. I took the time last night to search for anything written about bad team chemistry or poor management leading to failure to perform on the field for the Nats. There were plenty of things written in hindsight, but in terms of preseason predictions, I came up with zilch. You would think that if this were the opinion of many analysts, I would be able to find something.

 

What I found was that, not only were the Nationals heavily favored to win their division, but of all the sites I looked at, and it was quite numerous, the vote was unanimous. Not only that, but in most cases, the Nats were predicted to win their division by a fair amount. There were some concerns about injuries, but not enough to dampen anyone's predictions. And not one word about bad chemistry. I can provide links if you'd like.

 

As far as the quotes from your post, do you realize that your "analyst" is a 14 year old boy who wrote those things in his blog? Is that the best you could do?

 

It's quite possible that someone on the radio discussed it last year. But here is what you wrote:

 

Their failure to perform on the field has been predicted by many analysts who recognized the poor team chemistry and bad management.

 

That is a very misleading statement, at best.

[mvp 78]

As it stands right now, I believe the pitching rotation will keep the Sox out of the postseason unless ERod/Porcello/Buchholz become a solid #2. This team is better on paper than last uear, but that's not saying much.

 

As long as we have meaningful games in September, I'll be happy.

[Kimmi]

Again you totally misconstrued what I wrote. I said was that their failures were generally due to not adequately consideration of the human factors. I never mentioned scouting. I never said that they didn't consider scouting. I never said that they were generally failures nor that they weren't successful. What I thought was clear from my post was when they made mistakes it was because that they didn't give adequate consideration to the human factor like the Renteria acquistion ten years ago for example.

 

Perhaps they didn't give enough consideration to the human factor, perhaps they did. It is a false believe that people who are strong believers in analytics pay little attention to the human factors. In fact, they may even put more consideration into the human elements, as they are always trying to find ways to quantify it.

 

The problem, when it comes to these human factors, is that it is very difficult to predict how they might affect a player. What was it about Renteria's make up that would have suggested, before the fact, that he was not fit for Boston?

[a700hitter]

As it stands right now, I believe the pitching rotation will keep the Sox out of the postseason unless ERod/Porcello/Buchholz become a solid #2. This team is better on paper than last uear, but that's not saying much.

 

As long as we have meaningful games in September, I'll be happy.

My thinking on the upcoming season is pretty much along these lines. It will be refreshing to have a team that is not a complete flop right out of the gate.

[a700hitter]

Putting together a winning team is an art as much as it is a science. If it was purely stat and paper driven, the GM could do the job from his couch in his pajamas. Good teams almost always look good on paper, but plenty of teams that look good on paper flop. Those flops are not simply enigmas. Sometimes the GM got out worked and out smarted by the other GMs. That is not necessarily the case for small market teams as they have less resources. Wealthy elite franchises don't have that excuse.

[SoxnCycles]

It's not a bargain, but it's pretty much the market rate.

 

If you say so...

[Bellhorn04]

If you say so...

 

It's the truth, dude. Look up the current dollar value per WAR on FanGraphs if you don't believe me.

[Elktonnick]

It's possible that something has been said or written that I was just unaware of. That said, I read and research a lot in terms of baseball. I took the time last night to search for anything written about bad team chemistry or poor management leading to failure to perform on the field for the Nats. There were plenty of things written in hindsight, but in terms of preseason predictions, I came up with zilch. You would think that if this were the opinion of many analysts, I would be able to find something.

 

What I found was that, not only were the Nationals heavily favored to win their division, but of all the sites I looked at, and it was quite numerous, the vote was unanimous. Not only that, but in most cases, the Nats were predicted to win their division by a fair amount. There were some concerns about injuries, but not enough to dampen anyone's predictions. And not one word about bad chemistry. I can provide links if you'd like.

 

As far as the quotes from your post, do you realize that your "analyst" is a 14 year old boy who wrote those things in his blog? Is that the best you could do?

 

It's quite possible that someone on the radio discussed it last year. But here is what you wrote:

 

Their failure to perform on the field has been predicted by many analysts who recognized the poor team chemistry and bad management.

 

That is a very misleading statement, at best.

 

It was well known that the Nats had chemistry problems. It had been discussed virtually every year and predictions made. It was also well known that Matt Williams was on the hot seat going into 2015. That's why Rizzo cleaned house after this disasterous year.

 

I don't resort to ad hominum attacks . BTW for all I know you are a 14 year old girl. My original point stands that human factors and team chemistry can make teams not perform up to stats and predictions

Edited December 30, 2015 by Elktonnick

[Elktonnick]

Perhaps they didn't give enough consideration to the human factor, perhaps they did. It is a false believe that people who are strong believers in analytics pay little attention to the human factors. In fact, they may even put more consideration into the human elements, as they are always trying to find ways to quantify it.

 

The problem, when it comes to these human factors, is that it is very difficult to predict how they might affect a player. What was it about Renteria's make up that would have suggested, before the fact, that he was not fit for Boston?

 

Tony La Russa said he wasn't suited for Boston, for one. Now I know you will spend the next two days trying to find some proof on the net and when you can't say he never said it. Well he did.

 

BTW again you misconstrued my point I merely said that when they made mistakes it was because they didn't adequately consider human factors. You attempt to excuse that failure by saying they are difficult to assess. ( Why you feel the need to constantly try and excuse Ben,Theo or whomever's shortcomings is a puzzlement)

Human factors aren't any more difficult to assess then any other factors determining outcomes they just require a different skill set.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Elktonnick

[SoxnCycles]

It's the truth, dude. Look up the current dollar value per WAR on FanGraphs if you don't believe me.

 

And how does one put a dollar value on what was given up for said players?

 

Dude.

[Bellhorn04]

And how does one put a dollar value on what was given up for said players?

 

Dude.

 

Hey, you're the one who said 4.8 mil per win. That's all I was responding to.

[a700hitter]

Lol!

[Kimmi]

It's not a bargain, but it's pretty much the market rate.

 

For free agents, it is pretty much the market rate. That said, Smith is still a pre-arb player and was not acquired through free agency. And Kimbrel cost us a very good prospect package on top of his $12 mil AAV.

 

If you take the team as a whole, which includes all of the cost-controlled players, the most expensive cost per win last year was with the Dodgers, at approximately $3.5 mil per win. The Sox were 3rd, with something like $2.2 mil per win, if I recall correctly. The Yankees were second.

[Kimmi]

As it stands right now, I believe the pitching rotation will keep the Sox out of the postseason unless ERod/Porcello/Buchholz become a solid #2. This team is better on paper than last uear, but that's not saying much.

 

As long as we have meaningful games in September, I'll be happy.

 

This is a very fair statement. If one of Rogriguez, Porcello, or Buchholz doesn't step up as a good #2, then it might be a long season. That said, Buchholz was a #1 last year until the injury, Porcello pitched very well after his DL stint, and Rodriguez should only improve.

 

Also, I believe having Vazquez behind the plate and Price's leadership in the rotation will help. There are reasons to be optimistic.

[Kimmi]

Putting together a winning team is an art as much as it is a science. If it was purely stat and paper driven, the GM could do the job from his couch in his pajamas. Good teams almost always look good on paper, but plenty of teams that look good on paper flop. Those flops are not simply enigmas. Sometimes the GM got out worked and out smarted by the other GMs. That is not necessarily the case for small market teams as they have less resources. Wealthy elite franchises don't have that excuse.

 

No one has ever suggested that putting together a good team is purely stat and paper driven. Once again, when I say a team looks good on paper, I'm not talking about just in terms of stats.

 

Of course good teams almost always look good on paper, and bad teams almost always look bad on paper. Sometimes things pan out like you expect, sometimes they don't. A GM cannot control what happens on the field. He cannot control how a team or players actually perform. His job is to assemble a team that looks good "on paper". That's what gives the team the best chance to perform well on the field.

[jd98]

No one is arguing that we didn't need pitching upgrades. No one is arguing that our BP needed a major overhaul. But if you think about it, the entire offense was set except for the 4th OF. Dombrowski only had to add one piece to the rotation, albeit a major piece. He added 2 pieces to the pen, again, very significant pieces, but it is now considered one of the best in the league. To me, that says the team was in pretty good shape to begin with.

 

You have to give Henry credit too, for being willing to spend more than ever. Talent wise, the team just needed pitching upgrades, but financially Ben left the team with a whole lot of wasted money. If there was still the constraint of being under the luxury tax, then it wouldn't have been so easy to turn the team into a contender. Without Henry upping the payroll, Price couldn't be here without somehow getting rid of one of Ben's major mistakes.

[Kimmi]

It was well known that the Nats had chemistry problems. It had been discussed virtually every year and predictions made. It was also well known that Matt Williams was on the hot seat going into 2015. That's why Rizzo cleaned house after this disasterous year.

 

I don't resort to ad hominum attacks . BTW for all I know you are a 14 year old girl. My original point stands that human factors and team chemistry can make teams not perform up to stats and predictions

 

I happen to agree that human factors and team chemistry can affect the way a team performs. I have stated so many times on this forum.

 

However, if you make a statement that is misleading or simply not true, I'm going to call you on it. This is not the first time that you have done this.

 

As for you not resorting to ad hominem attacks, spare me. For one, I am attacking your misleading statement, ie the topic. For two, might I remind you of your use of the term 'sychophant' just last week? And that is not the first time you've done that either.

[SoxnCycles]

Hey, you're the one who said 4.8 mil per win. That's all I was responding to.

 

I'll try not to be as subtle next time.

[Kimmi]

Tony La Russa said he wasn't suited for Boston, for one. Now I know you will spend the next two days trying to find some proof on the net and when you can't say he never said it. Well he did.

 

BTW again you misconstrued my point I merely said that when they made mistakes it was because they didn't adequately consider human factors. You attempt to excuse that failure by saying they are difficult to assess. ( Why you feel the need to constantly try and excuse Ben,Theo or whomever's shortcomings is a puzzlement)

Human factors aren't any more difficult to assess then any other factors determining outcomes they just require a different skill set.

 

I disagree. I think human factors are way more difficult to assess than physical talent.

 

As long as people continue to unfairly criticize and blame Ben or Theo, I will continue to defend them. It's not a need, it's a pastime.

[Kimmi]

You have to give Henry credit too, for being willing to spend more than ever. Talent wise, the team just needed pitching upgrades, but financially Ben left the team with a whole lot of wasted money. If there was still the constraint of being under the luxury tax, then it wouldn't have been so easy to turn the team into a contender. Without Henry upping the payroll, Price couldn't be here without somehow getting rid of one of Ben's major mistakes.

 

Absolutely, Henry gets credit for his willingness to spend. It is a fair enough point that if Henry wanted to stay under the luxury tax this year, the Sox would not be able to sign Price.

[Bellhorn04]

I'll try not to be as subtle next time.

 

Yeah right. You're about as subtle as a pickaxe.

[Elktonnick]

I happen to agree that human factors and team chemistry can affect the way a team performs. I have stated so many times on this forum.

 

However, if you make a statement that is misleading or simply not true, I'm going to call you on it. This is not the first time that you have done this.

 

As for you not resorting to ad hominem attacks, spare me. For one, I am attacking your misleading statement, ie the topic. For two, might I remind you of your use of the term 'sychophant' just last week? And that is not the first time you've done that either.

 

I corrected that with respect to you. You aren't a sychophant your defense of Cherrington is more filial like I said.

 

What I was referring by ad hominum was because a particular individual says something it isn't valid because that person said it. That is what is meant by ad hominum argumentum. What I said about Washington wasn't misleading or untrue it was accurate just because you couldn't find find it on the web. Like I said concern about Washington's clubhouse chemistry has been longstanding and not just last year.

[Spudboy]

Lol!

 

Yup.

[Elktonnick]

I disagree. I think human factors are way more difficult to assess than physical talent.

 

As long as people continue to unfairly criticize and blame Ben or Theo, I will continue to defend them. It's not a need, it's a pastime.

 

Not for those who know how to do it. They are called psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists etc etc etc etc. I suppose you include Henry as one who unfairly criticized your boy Ben by firing him.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Elktonnick