a700hitter

Yep, another look is needed, because in the end the visual scouting makes the final confirmation. You said it yourself without using those exact words.

I am sure that is what they are thinking. I was tongue in cheek when I said that he would be the fall guy, but make no mistake, if they do collapse, the fingers will be pointed at Farrell.

Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong in 2014. I really didn't expect the 2014 Sox to be strong contenders for the division title, but I didn't expect the level of futility.

If Buch and Masterson replicate their 2014 seasons, things could go south very fast. Farrell has a track record of several last place finishes-- the perfect fall guy.

Anytime you hand over 3 starting positions to untested rookies, you are asking for trouble. I think a 4th place finish was very foreseeable. The utter futility of the offense was probably beyond most expectations, because in addition to the failure of the rookies, Napoli and Victorino also had terrible seasons.

He needs to keep Farrell in place to be the fall guy.

There's no decrying in baseball.

I fundamentally disagree. Technology and analytics are for the most part "off the shelf" commodities that can be purchased at any time. The Harvard/Wharton MBA consultants will always take your call and show up to train your people. The human talent pool is limited and is not an "off the shelf" commodity. Get the best people with the best skillset for the jobs. The analytics and technologies are not part of the skillset. They are tools like an instrument is to a musician. It's the musician that is more valuable. People tend to be very black and white. I am not at all saying don't use the modern day analytics. Of course, you have to use the tools necessary to do the job. It's a question of emphasis. Not every new business analytic is a winner. Far from it. Once a new method starts to get publicity, it has already been producing some level of success. You don't hear or read about the numerous failures, because organizations don't publicize their failures. That is just a fact. My Company had an investment that was hemorrhaging money -- piling up millions in losses. When the executives went on their traveling road show Town Hall they handed out a nice glossy brochure with bios for each of them including their areas of responsibility for the Company. Curiously, none listed the the losing investment as a responsibility. I guess that business purchased and ran itself. Human capital is the most important and most expensive.

And easily learned and copied so any advantage is short- lived.

I have seen a lot of ideas implemented at my Company that came from Wharton or Harvard MBA consultants that not only didn't add value to or business but that in many ways were detrimental.

You copycat the ones that work and save your money not doing those that don't work.

Every department has a budget for salary and compensation. No team has all the top scouts. If the budget devoted to tech/new fangled corporate business initiatives was redirected to additional scouting budget, they would most certainly be able to upgrade the quality of their scouts.

It also works for every pizzeria and fast food joint in town.

The DHing will extend the life of his knees.

Pieces of Yankee Stadium (1976 ed) started falling a few years before they built the new place.

I like that park, aside from the 50 foot glove. It has great sightlines. The upperdeck seems closer to the field than the lower deck in Oakland. I like Camden Yards too, but my preference is ATT. Of the new parks, the Phillies place is my least favorite. That might be influenced by the fact that Phillie fans are just so unpleasant.

I would be nostalgic for the old park, and someday I will want to take my grandkids to see a ballgame at Fenway, but I would really enjoy a nice new, comfortable ballpark. If anyof you have been to JetBlue park it is the same field inside a new ballpark. Granted that is a much smaller park, but they could do the same thing with a 45,000 seating capacity park.

Eventually most teams have employed some version of moneyball. It really didn't take long. As for scouting evolving, I would disagree. The skillsets to play the game remain unchanged. Scouts have broader reach using technology and there are more readily available stats on more players so they can better utilize their time. The technology and availability of stats I would say have helped scouts be more efficient with their time, but the fundamentals of the job remain unchanged.

The Sox should have had a weight clause in his contract for the kind of money he is being paid. He could hire a top nutritionist, eat tasty food, not be hungry and get to a healthy weight.

Published height and weight is usually fictional. Panda at his fattest is a good 40lbs bigger than Gwynn-- buy my eye test.

They would still have lots of obstacles. Once they move out of Fenway, they would lose the tourist money. A lot of people come to see the venerable old ballpark. That is a factor in their decision. It is why people keep coming to Wrigley. It's not the Cubs that are drawing them in. If you are a baseball fan, even casually, you have to go to Wrigley when you visit Chicago. If the Sox move to the burbs, attendance would drop like a stone if they field garbage like they did in 2014.

Gwynn was pudgy and soft, but Panda has about 40 lbs on Gwynn easily. The pounding on the joints is exponential as the weight increases.

Boston politics is too corrupt for them to get it done in our lifetime.

When you see Big Papi in person, you realize that he is not fat. He is just a big strong man. Even at his heaviest, he never had a gut like Panda. The knees give out prematurely on the overweight players, e.g. CC, Mo Vaughn.

In my experience, these tools, methods etc. are usually pretty costly. Consultants need to be engaged to train personnel etc. IMO, the money expended on these budget items would be better spent to poach other organizations' top scouts. These flavor of the day MBA ideas end up being copycat-ed by the competition so any edge is very, very short-lived. Businesses should invest in their most basic fundamentals. Never mind providing the scout with state of the art software. Get the best scouts. That's the way to go. That is the out of the box thinking. I have heard "out of the box" thinking preached for years, and then everyone does the same thing as the competition. This "neuroscouting' will be new and innovative for a very short period. No one is advocating that teams just go with an "eye test". In today's high tech world, there are people in nursing homes with cell phones and the internet. Technology is part of our world. What I am advocating is that human talent is more of a lasting advantage than any technological or analytical break through. Let the others waste their money on the trial and error of most of that. You can use it after it has been vetted and established. Some people would think that this is not forward-thinking. I disagree. If you get the best possible human talent at all levels of your organization, they will be able to better differentiate which break throughs are game changers and true advancements as opposed to passing fads. Let others invent the light bulb. I'd rather have the best organization for manufacturing it after it is invented. But that's just me... someone who has very successfully survived in business and seen many many of these things come and go.