Kimmi

I think you are reaching a bit, but let me spell it out for you. The statements above would be made by the same person. He/she considers stud to be a positive attribute, and considers slut, shallow, and lacking in self-confidence to be negative attributes. You know as well as I do that double standards exist. They exist in people's baseball opinions as well.

Here is a link to the article: http://ferrall.radio.cbssports.com/2015/08/26/denny-mclain-dombrowski-got-caught-talking-to-too-many-teams/ McLain does not speak highly of Dombrowski at all. OTOH, he speaks rather highly of the Red Sox organization (thank you Ben).

Double Standard: Men who sleep with a lot of different women are studs. Women who sleep with a lot of different men are sluts. Changing your opinion: Men who sleep with a lot of different women are studs. Men who sleep with a lot of different women are shallow and lacking in self confidence.

I personally hope that it is not true.

Not that I agree, but I can accept this as a fair opinion. What I can't accept is the idea that Cherington was fired for doing a bad job but Dombrowski was fired for any reason other than he was doing a bad job. Or that Cherington was fired because Henry lost confidence in him but Dombrowski could not possibly have been fired because Ilitch lost confidence in him.

Please show me where I have ever said anything about there being a purely objective analysis. But maybe this is why I refer to computer analysis and sabermetrics more than others, over the "eye test"? No, I don't think they are foolproof by any means, but they sure do eliminate as much bias as possible, far more bias than the "I know what my eyes tell me" argument. I am not talking about consistency in terms of never changing your mind or opinion. I am talking about consistency in terms of not having a double standard based on whether you like/agree with something or not. There's a difference.

FTR, I never said that Dombrowski was incompetent. I agree with you that he is not incompetent. IMO, the Tigers were just ready to head in another direction. I feel the same is true of Ben. With the young core in place and a strong farm system, Henry was ready to head in another direction. The on field results have not been good the past two years. I don't think that equates to incompetence when the teams looked good on paper. If the team that Ben assembled were not projected to contend by the vast majority, then I could understand the incompetence argument. What I find ironic is that I think Ilitch is trying to embrace a philosophy more like the Red Sox have had, and Henry is trying to embrace one more like the Tigers have had. As far as bias goes, I pretty much agree with you. I think that there are varying degrees of bias though, and some can be more objective than others.

I do not disagree with any of this.

Farrell is the type of manager who toes the company line. He will follow the directives of the FO.

No, I did not at all mean to imply that the voters lost their voting privilege because they did not embrace analytics. I agree with you, I don't think that's the case at all. I am just saying that because most of the voters that are no longer voting were old school, the percentage of voters who are old school is lower.

That's a good question. I'm not sure but I would guess WAR? Maybe FIP, but I doubt it. Blyleven, IMO, was a probable HOFer, but by no means a shoe in. He has good stats, but not necessarily HOF worthy when it comes to the traditional type of things that the voters look for, such as 20 win seasons or a great W-L record, sub 3 career ERA, Cy Young or MVP awards, etc.

Sorry, but this post doesn't make any sense to me. Dombrowski (or any GM) will provide Farrell with scouting reports, stats, etc. collected by his FO team. He will then allow Farrell to manage the way he sees fit, for the most part. That's the way it usually goes. However, if Hanley really stinks at 1B to the point where he is a liability, Dombrowski has the power to direct Farrell not to play Hanley.

The reports that I've read are that Hanley, per a gentlemen's agreement, arrived in camp 2 weeks early to work out in left field. He did not take a lot of extra fielding practice during the season, but my understanding was that was because the coaches were more concerned with keeping him healthy. It is also my understanding that Hanley willingly did practice anytime the coaches asked him to do so. Dombrowski has the final say on who plays and who doesn't. While GMs will almost always leave that to the manager, if Dombrowski wants somebody to be played (to be showcased, for instance) or wants somebody to be benched, the final decision is his.

LOL That too.

I fully admit my bias all the time. That said, I do try to remain consistent in my opinions whether I like/agree with something or dislike/disagree with something. Sometimes I just can't overcome my bias, as with the case of Boggs having his number retired. I don't think he deserves to have his number retired, but I also acknowledge that my opinion is based on nothing more than my bias against him. There many opinions that are formed here that are based too much on bias or personal like/dislike of something and not enough on objective analysis.

And because I'm such a fair poster, I will give the conspiracy theorists this from Detroit beat writer Drew Sharp: "...there remains no public explanation for what ultimately crumbled the long relationship between Dombrowski and the Ilitches. My own suspicions from speaking with various parties in and around the Tigers is that the Ilitches thought that Dombrowski had made back-channel overtures to potential suitors for when his contract ended after the season." And this from Denny McLain, though he offers no sources: "Dave Dombrowski was caught dipping his hand in too many cookie jars, and in the end, it cost him his job. “What he was essentially doing was talking to any number of clubs,” former Tigers pitcher Denny McLain said on CBS Sports Radio’s Ferrall on the Bench. “And listen, the world of baseball, especially at the ownership level, is a very small group. We’re only talking (about) really 32 icons who own baseball teams, so what you’ve got is you’ve got a guy who thinks he’s bigger than the game because he’s had some success in a couple of places with World Series – and that’s great success. But he came over here and he really didn’t have success.” Everybody knew this day was coming, but what happened is he got caught talking to too many teams and one of those icons said something to somebody, and almost in the middle of the night, (Mike) Ilitch found out abut it, called him and said you need to hit the door and don’t look back and don’t say goodbye.”" This does not prove anything, but it does allow for the possibility that the Sox and Dombrowski were in discussion before Dombrowski was fired.

So, you speculate that Ben was fired because he was incompetent. You then turn around and speculate that Dombrowski was fired because of every reason other than incompetence. To me that sounds like an opinion formed by bias.

How about proof straight from the horse's mouth. From an interview with Sherman: "There was some speculation that the parting was mutual. But, Dombrowski said in a phone call Wednesday with The Post, that was not the case."

All of this about why Ben and Dombrowski were fired is speculation and your opinion, as is whether Ben would have gotten a job as a #1 if he interviewed. Because you think it, does not make it fact.

I admit that I have strong opinions and I won't often back down from them. That said, I will change my opinion now and then, but it will take more than speculation to change it. And again, the same can be said about you, and most of the posters on this site.

On the topic of HOF voting, here's something I read from Sherman earlier: "My suspicion is that the 100 or so eliminated voters skewed older and, thus, probably were more resistant to newer analytics that burnish the candidacies of, say, Mussina and Raines, and also were probably more strident in not voting for players associated with PEDs such as Bonds and Clemens. The Internet and advanced analytics have had a huge impact. The percentage of voters who see 300 wins or 3,000 hits or 500 homers as the key stats is dropping. Advanced analytics provided a stronger case for Bert Blyleven and the relentless support (and harangue) by his backers ultimately got Blyleven over the Cooperstown goal line. In a pre-Internet world, Blyleven never gets in." It's nice to see that HOF voting is trending in the right direction.

The Braves have made it known that they are centering their rebuild around pitching. They are looking to create another Smoltz-Glavine-Maddux era. Trading Simmons was not a popular move, and I'm sure it was difficult for the Braves to do. But they got LA's top two pitching prospects plus some cash back. As we have seen from this offseason, developing or obtaining cost controlled pitching is a very smart move.

Aren't the Braves in rebuild/tank mode?

I agree that he was a perfectly logical choice to take this team into a win now mode. I am not at all opposed to what the team looks like for the short term. The jury is still out on what shape Dombrowski will have the team in for the long term. So far, he has not done anyting to hurt the team's long term outlook. So far, great job by Dombrowski.

I disagree. IMO, Dombrowski would have kept Cherington as GM, then hired Wren under some other title as another advisor. That said, Cherington knew that he was not going to have much say in the final decisions. He also knew that Dombrowski was headed in a different direction with this team. As I said, I would have left under those circumstances too.