The "I Support, I hate ___" thread.

[Bellhorn04]

No, but don't complain about me "buzzarding" if I'm simply stating that he's not playing well (he's not) and there's reason for concern (there is).

 

I'd rather be a buzzard and be on the right side of history than be a fanboy.

 

And how many times have you written him off in the past? Last year you had Trade Pedroia in your sig line and he ended up with a 5.7 WAR.

 

You'll be right eventually, of course.

[mvp 78]

And how many times have you written him off in the past? Last year you had Trade Pedroia in your sig line and he ended up with a 5.7 WAR.

 

You'll be right eventually, of course.

 

Because you should trade someone when they are at the height of their value.

 

DFA Buchholz - good call

Fire Farrell - good call as he would have been replaced by Lovullo who is doing great in AZ

Trade Pedroia - good call as he's only going to get worse here on out and that contract is no longer worth it

[Jack Flap]

For the record, it really wasn't criticism of Pedroia I had an issue with (he's okay in my book, but sticks his foot in his mouth sometimes and obviously isn't what he once was on the field), it was placing the useless Pablo above him in the pecking order.

[mvp 78]

For the record, it really wasn't criticism of Pedroia I had an issue with, it was placing the useless Pablo above him in the pecking order.

 

The pecking order is completely arbitrary to begin with. There's always going to be idiots like me who will put a popular option at the bottom of a list.

 

It's like those people that think Sgt Peppers is better than Pet Sounds. You just pet them on the head, tell them that you value their opinion and just move on with your day knowing that their entire belief system is wrong.

[a700hitter]

So do you believe all auto mechanics in general are equally competent at the job or that they are all equally incompetent at the job?

I don't know where you are going with this, but I don't expect that there are many Mensa members in that occupation. And they are pretty much the same. The really bad ones don't last too long, because their Customer's cars will not run well if at all. What point are you trying to make?

[Bellhorn04]

Trade Pedroia - good call as he's only going to get worse here on out and that contract is no longer worth it

 

Trading Pedroia at the start of last year was not a good call. Another team would have gotten a 5.7 WAR player for a bargain price.

[Spudboy]

Trading Pedroia at the start of last year was not a good call. Another team would have gotten a 5.7 WAR player for a bargain price.

 

And, once traded, who is his replacement near term and long term?

 

What would this team gain in such a deal?

[Slasher9]

Apologies to everyone i offended by putting Pedroia on my "hate" list and putting Panda on my "meh" list.

Once Panda throws a teammate under the bus for the world to see i promise i will drop him down to join Pedey on the "hate" list. actually with factoring in their baseball acumen i could possibly move Panda all the way down to "Despise". In case i forget to do it - please remind me to do it once Panda acts like a little bitch and throws a teammate under the bus.

thanks.

[devildavid]

And how many times have you written him off in the past? Last year you had Trade Pedroia in your sig line and he ended up with a 5.7 WAR.

 

You'll be right eventually, of course.

 

This is similar to those buzzards who kept circling Ortiz, starting in 2008.

[devildavid]

Because you should trade someone when they are at the height of their value.

 

DFA Buchholz - good call

Fire Farrell - good call as he would have been replaced by Lovullo who is doing great in AZ

Trade Pedroia - good call as he's only going to get worse here on out and that contract is no longer worth it

 

Using that logic , they should have traded Ortiz after the 2007 season.

[devildavid]

I don't know where you are going with this, but I don't expect that there are many Mensa members in that occupation. And they are pretty much the same. The really bad ones don't last too long, because their Customer's cars will not run well if at all. What point are you trying to make?

 

You used the word fungible to describe all of baseball management as if it meant something negative. If bad auto mechanics don't last doesn't bad baseball management face the same rule? Everyone in every profession is fungible, regardless of the cognitive ability needed to do the job. There is always someone just as good, just as skilled, or just as smart who can replace anyone in any job. You use fungible like it has a negative connotation. It simply means you can be replaced. We all can be replaced very easily.

 

You also don't seem to think that there are gradations of skill in all professions. Some auto mechanics are better than others and can do more complex jobs. Same with baseball management.

 

That being said, we all still are extremely fungible.

[devildavid]

Apologies to everyone i offended by putting Pedroia on my "hate" list and putting Panda on my "meh" list.

Once Panda throws a teammate under the bus for the world to see i promise i will drop him down to join Pedey on the "hate" list. actually with factoring in their baseball acumen i could possibly move Panda all the way down to "Despise". In case i forget to do it - please remind me to do it once Panda acts like a little bitch and throws a teammate under the bus.

thanks.

 

Pedroia did not throw a teammate under the bus.

[SoxnCycles]

Pedroia did not throw a teammate under the bus.

 

I may have been high as a kite at the time, but wasn't Pedroia's comment right after Barnes threw one one at Machado's head?

I can't say I blame Pedroia for wanting to distance himself from such a dumbass move.

[Bellhorn04]

I may have been high as a kite at the time, but wasn't Pedroia's comment right after Barnes threw one one at Machado's head?

I can't say I blame Pedroia for wanting to distance himself from such a dumbass move.

 

Besides which, Barnes served his suspension, he's back and pitching pretty well, everybody moved on from it...it's old news.

[mvp 78]

Using that logic , they should have traded Ortiz after the 2007 season.

 

Pedroia is much older than Ortiz was in 2007.

[a700hitter]

You used the word fungible to describe all of baseball management as if it meant something negative. If bad auto mechanics don't last doesn't bad baseball management face the same rule? Everyone in every profession is fungible, regardless of the cognitive ability needed to do the job. There is always someone just as good, just as skilled, or just as smart who can replace anyone in any job. You use fungible like it has a negative connotation. It simply means you can be replaced. We all can be replaced very easily.

 

You also don't seem to think that there are gradations of skill in all professions. Some auto mechanics are better than others and can do more complex jobs. Same with baseball management.

 

That being said, we all still are extremely fungible.

As the statheads have pointed out, on field managerial moves don't translate to victories or losses to any great extent. As such their jobs are more fungible than most, and imo most managers are not very smart or very good at their jobs. The same goes for FO personnel. The teams run by good, bad or in between management win roughly half of their games. Whether they deviate from the norm is often significantly influenced by whether their players remain healthy or get injured. So, yes, imo FO is extremely fungible.

 

Some occupations are more fungible that others based on many factors including the level of skill and training needed to do the job, the pool of eligible qualified individuals, and the impact that the person will have on achieving desired outcomes. Based on these factors, imo, field managers and FO personnel are extremely fungible. There are dozens of people with the same skill sets available for these jobs who would produce similar results.

Edited June 21, 2017 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

Pedroia is much older than Ortiz was in 2007.

 

You were advocating trading Pedroia at the start of the 2016 season, when he was 32 years, 8 months.

At the start of the 2008 season Ortiz was 32 years, 5 months.

 

3 months difference.

[a700hitter]

Pedroia did not throw a teammate under the bus.

He threw the entire team under the bus with his "it's not me. It's them" statement from the dugout. How would you interpret that remark?

[a700hitter]

Pedroia is still a key to Red Sox success. I am predicting a big second half for him if they don't find a broken rib when they return home.

[mvp 78]

You were advocating trading Pedroia at the start of the 2016 season, when he was 32 years, 8 months.

At the start of the 2008 season Ortiz was 32 years, 5 months.

 

3 months difference.

 

A better comparison would be the end of 2016 and the end of 2007.

[devildavid]

As the statheads have pointed out, on field managerial moves don't translate to victories or losses to any great extent. As such their jobs are more fungible than most, and imo most managers are not very smart or very good at their jobs. The same goes for FO personnel. The teams run by good, bad or in between management win roughly half of their games. Whether they deviate from the norm is often significantly influenced by whether their players remain healthy or get injured. So, yes, imo FO is extremely fungible.

 

Some occupations are more fungible that others based on many factors including the level of skill and training needed to do the job, the pool of eligible qualified individuals, and the impact that the person will have on achieving desired outcomes. Based on these factors, imo, field managers and FO personnel are extremely fungible. There are dozens of people with the same skill sets available for these jobs who would produce similar results.

 

Calling managers extremely fungible is kind of meaningless. You either are fungible or you are not. Everyone is replaceable. It does not follow that the results from bad management are not that different from the results of good management.

 

It is entirely different to say that all of baseball management is not very smart or good at their jobs. That is a claim that has nothing to do with being fungible since the results of different management does in fact vary in quality. Better management has more success. Prior to John Henry's team taking over the Sox had a spotty track record. The new ownership and management have done an excellent job in making the Red Sox organization more successful on the field as well as financially.

 

As to the field management, you don't seem to accept that there are things other than on the field in game decisions that impact the quality of the results. Managers do a lot more than you are willing to give them credit for off the field in preparing their players. You choose to ignore that aspect of management but I do not. I don't think that Jimy Williams = Joe Kerrigan = Grady Little = Terry Francona = Bobby Valentine = John Farrell. It is also important to consider which manager fits best with the composition of the team.

 

So your claim is really that all MLB management is so useless as to be mere figureheads at best and detriments to performance at worst. They could all be replaced by a computerized random decision program and get the same results in general. I think you are dead wrong.

[devildavid]

He threw the entire team under the bus with his "it's not me. It's them" statement from the dugout. How would you interpret that remark?

 

As Pedroia speaking bluntly for himself. He did not think retaliation was needed. He felt it was just part of playing hard, just as he does. He is his own man.

[devildavid]

A better comparison would be the end of 2016 and the end of 2007.

 

So they should they have traded Ortiz?

[a700hitter]

Calling managers extremely fungible is kind of meaningless. You either are fungible or you are not. Everyone is replaceable. It does not follow that the results from bad management are not that different from the results of good management.

 

It is entirely different to say that all of baseball management is not very smart or good at their jobs. That is a claim that has nothing to do with being fungible since the results of different management does in fact vary in quality. Better management has more success. Prior to John Henry's team taking over the Sox had a spotty track record. The new ownership and management have done an excellent job in making the Red Sox organization more successful on the field as well as financially.

 

As to the field management, you don't seem to accept that there are things other than on the field in game decisions that impact the quality of the results. Managers do a lot more than you are willing to give them credit for off the field in preparing their players. You choose to ignore that aspect of management but I do not. I don't think that Jimy Williams = Joe Kerrigan = Grady Little = Terry Francona = Bobby Valentine = John Farrell. It is also important to consider which manager fits best with the composition of the team.

 

So your claim is really that all MLB management is so useless as to be mere figureheads at best and detriments to performance at worst. They could all be replaced by a computerized random decision program and get the same results in general. I think you are dead wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I do think that some functions are more fungible than others for the reasons that I stated earlier, and I think that field managers and FO personnel are a dime a dozen, extremely overpaid and they make little positive impact on team performance which is why I don't support any of them. I always support our players even if they stink as long as they are making a good effort. Edited June 21, 2017 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

As Pedroia speaking bluntly for himself. He did not think retaliation was needed. He felt it was just part of playing hard, just as he does. He is his own man.

He should have expressed that in private to his teammates instead of his ridiculous display on the field. I love Pedey, but that was being a jack ass. You can be your own man without throwing your team under the bus while they are still on the field.

[SoxnCycles]

Calling managers extremely fungible is kind of meaningless. You either are fungible or you are not. Everyone is replaceable. It does not follow that the results from bad management are not that different from the results of good management.

 

It is entirely different to say that all of baseball management is not very smart or good at their jobs. That is a claim that has nothing to do with being fungible since the results of different management does in fact vary in quality. Better management has more success. Prior to John Henry's team taking over the Sox had a spotty track record. The new ownership and management have done an excellent job in making the Red Sox organization more successful on the field as well as financially.

 

As to the field management, you don't seem to accept that there are things other than on the field in game decisions that impact the quality of the results. Managers do a lot more than you are willing to give them credit for off the field in preparing their players. You choose to ignore that aspect of management but I do not. I don't think that Jimy Williams = Joe Kerrigan = Grady Little = Terry Francona = Bobby Valentine = John Farrell. It is also important to consider which manager fits best with the composition of the team.

 

So your claim is really that all MLB management is so useless as to be mere figureheads at best and detriments to performance at worst. They could all be replaced by a computerized random decision program and get the same results in general. I think you are dead wrong.

 

You don't think Bobby V did as good (or bad) a job as Francona???

 

Good post.

[a700hitter]

You don't think Bobby V did as good (or bad) a job as Francona???

 

Good post.

I love Francona- my favorite Red Sox manager, but how good a job did he do in September 2011?

[mvp 78]

If only Francona could have gotten a QS or two in September...

[a700hitter]

If only Francona could have gotten a QS or two in September...

True, and without that Franconia couldn't make a difference. Any fan on his couch would not have had a worse record that September.

[devildavid]

You are entitled to your opinion, but I do think that some functions are more fungible than others for the reasons that I stated earlier, and I think that field managers and FO personnel are a dime a dozen, extremely overpaid and they make little positive impact on team performance which is why I don't support any of them. I always support our players even if they stink as long as they are making a good effort.

 

And back around we come to what is the basis of your opinion. Please don't say cognitive ability. Because you really have no way to measure it. What is it about the behavior of baseball management that brings you to your conclusion? Give some examples.