Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    Tough call on the 6-7 year contracts.  If you get a hitter when he is 26-27, or a pitcher with low mileage, I think you can be more flexible.  But that's where then numbers can dictate a lot.  We have a pretty good idea how much hitters decline by year.  You know guys like Tex and Gonzo will decline.  But you're out of Tex & Gonzo when they are 36.  That's where Bill James can tell you approximately what their values are.  And maybe scouting tells you what kind of conditioning they have, whether their feet or bat seem slow, how they'll react to NY and Boston, what kind of competitor they are.

    You rarely get perfect choices and elegant solutions, but my approach is to get as much data as is reasonable.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    I'm not saying 4 years hard and fast on contracts. There are some guys out there who will be worth signing for 6-7 years. It's when I see what a guy like Crawford was signed for that I wonder where things are trending and shake my head. Four years should have been the absolute most he should have been offered. The 20 million per is another issue. More SMH on that. Seems like that was a total knee jerk decicision, a case of " let's offer this guy the world before someone else does".

    What you say about pefect choices is true. There aren't any and collecting as much raw data as possible is always advisible. But then you need to take that data and think things through. That didn't happen with Crawford. I really can't say how much James had to do with that, but, right or wrong, the perception is that he was a big part of that decision. My gut feeling is that, as always, it was Lucchino pulling the strings.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    My reason is that I distrust the "Moneyball" philosophy. It seems that the Red Sox front office is dominated by corporate types. That's not so bad when your "product" is some type of commodity such as oil, wheat, automobiles or something static. Not so good when dealing with human beings, which are anything but. My perception is that the Sox pay more attention to bottom line numbers than what players do in the field. I'm not saying that the numbers aren't important. They're just not all important. The need to combine what the raw numbers say with reports from scouting staff is tantamount to a balanced approach toward player evaluation. I hope this is the approach of the Red Sox front office but I get the sense that it's not. I know from first hand experience that when too much faith is put in numbers, and not enough attention is paid to reports from the field, it can quickly lead to trouble, if not outright disaster.

    It isn't that I "don't like Bill James", it's more that I'm highly skeptical of the Monyball first philosophy which he is one of the poster children for and which the Red Sox front office is seemingly so enamoured with. As for Camen (Camine?), a machine that has been given a name, as though this somehow imbues it with a personality, also believe me when I tell you, again from first hand experience, that not evereything that issues forth from a computer is necessarily the right answer. In my opinion, it's time to put a more human face on the organization.

    Antibody, I think you're right about the FO being dominated by corporate types in recent years, but I don't think either Theo or Bill James falls into the category.  IMO, the overbearing corporate influence in recent years is Lucchino.

    James was hired in 2003 along with Theo.  Look at all the success the team had from 2003 to 2009.  It was after the 2007 WS Championship that the FO (namely Lucchino) got greedy and the team started heading in the wrong direction.  Not coincidentally, IMO, Bill James' role in the organization was lessened shortly after that and the Red Sox continued to move further away from the philosophy that brought them so much success.

    I posted on another site that I think common misconceptions about Bill James and stat geeks in general, along with the teams that employ such people, is that they have no idea about the human element of the game, and that they believe that paying attention to numbers and scouting are mutually exclusive events. 

    James has commented several times about how important scouting is, and that the work he does with the numbers could never take the place of the scouts.  No one is saying that players should be obtained based solely on some advanced stats.  That would be silly.  However, I think it would be equally as silly to ignore the stats and obtain a player based solely on the scouting reports.

    You said it perfectly:  "The need to combine what the raw numbers say with reports from scouting staff is tantamount to a balanced approach toward player evaluation."  I completely agree with that, and I'm pretty sure Bill James does too.

    There is so much data available out there.  Why not employ someone who understands it and can interpret it, and use it along with the scouting reports to get the most complete assessment of a player as possible?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    You ruined my fun, and now I need to wait for another stupid thread from him, and that could take at least 15 minutes.

    LOL Joey, that is funny.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My reason is that I distrust the "Moneyball" philosophy. It seems that the Red Sox front office is dominated by corporate types. That's not so bad when your "product" is some type of commodity such as oil, wheat, automobiles or something static. Not so good when dealing with human beings, which are anything but. My perception is that the Sox pay more attention to bottom line numbers than what players do in the field. I'm not saying that the numbers aren't important. They're just not all important. The need to combine what the raw numbers say with reports from scouting staff is tantamount to a balanced approach toward player evaluation. I hope this is the approach of the Red Sox front office but I get the sense that it's not. I know from first hand experience that when too much faith is put in numbers, and not enough attention is paid to reports from the field, it can quickly lead to trouble, if not outright disaster.

    It isn't that I "don't like Bill James", it's more that I'm highly skeptical of the Monyball first philosophy which he is one of the poster children for and which the Red Sox front office is seemingly so enamoured with. As for Camen (Camine?), a machine that has been given a name, as though this somehow imbues it with a personality, also believe me when I tell you, again from first hand experience, that not evereything that issues forth from a computer is necessarily the right answer. In my opinion, it's time to put a more human face on the organization.

    Antibody, I think you're right about the FO being dominated by corporate types in recent years, but I don't think either Theo or Bill James falls into the category.  IMO, the overbearing corporate influence in recent years is Lucchino.

    James was hired in 2003 along with Theo.  Look at all the success the team had from 2003 to 2009.  It was after the 2007 WS Championship that the FO (namely Lucchino) got greedy and the team started heading in the wrong direction.  Not coincidentally, IMO, Bill James' role in the organization was lessened shortly after that and the Red Sox continued to move further away from the philosophy that brought them so much success.

    I posted on another site that I think common misconceptions about Bill James and stat geeks in general, along with the teams that employ such people, is that they have no idea about the human element of the game, and that they believe that paying attention to numbers and scouting are mutually exclusive events. 

    James has commented several times about how important scouting is, and that the work he does with the numbers could never take the place of the scouts.  No one is saying that players should be obtained based solely on some advanced stats.  That would be silly.  However, I think it would be equally as silly to ignore the stats and obtain a player based solely on the scouting reports.

    You said it perfectly:  "The need to combine what the raw numbers say with reports from scouting staff is tantamount to a balanced approach toward player evaluation."  I completely agree with that, and I'm pretty sure Bill James does too.

    There is so much data available out there.  Why not employ someone who understands it and can interpret it, and use it along with the scouting reports to get the most complete assessment of a player as possible?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Thank you, Kimmi. I wasn't aware of the things Bill James had said about scouting. If those are the facts then I apologize to him and to you. My opinion was obviously based on mis-information. Case in point about having enough data. I have no trouble admitting that I was wrong.

    It's a shame that so many corporate types these days are unable to do that. They cannot, must not ever suffer even the appearance of being in error. If you never acknowledge the fact that you have made a mistake, how can you expect to learn anything? How sad it must be to live that way.

    ARE YOU GETTING THIS, LARRY?????

    I sincerely doubt it. More's the pity.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to Soxchemistry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Speak for yourself Jim----and it's seven years (2002-2008) and not 11.  Since 2009 this team has been in full meltdown.  Besides, the old saying is WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY fits nicely  here.  For straight years of failure, five since we won anything at all.  I don't call that success.  I call this going South and being a Southern boy I think you get my drift.

    My recollection is that you were quite pleased heading into 2011, predicting 99 wins.  Were we in full meltdown when you predicted 99 wins?

    [/QUOTE]
    Seabeachfred predicted 99 wins for the 2012 team? Is this true Fred?

    [/QUOTE]

    Fred thought that Theo put together a great team.  He whined that Theo didn't sign anyone in October.  Then he celebrated that we went on a drunken sailor spree in November and December.  Then he complained about the guys we signed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    If it was too wrinkled and tarnished I would never have picked it up... I have standards

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    Antibody, here's a very good read on Bill James from Joe Posnanski, if you're interested.

    http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38300880

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    Three years ago, we had a conversation about then-Tampa Bay outfielder Carl Crawford, and while I won't go into the details, it was quite clear that Bill was not as high on Crawford’s future as, say, I was. I've long been a big Carl Crawford fan because, at his best, he's such an exciting player to watch. Bill agreed with that -- Bill loved watching Crawford play, with his great speed and defense -- but, like I say, he made it pretty clear that he thought some team would overpay wildly for Crawford's excitement quotient as he aged into his 30s.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Antibody, here's a very good read on Bill James from Joe Posnanski, if you're interested.

    http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38300880

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for posting that Kimmi. An excellent article. After reading it I see that my opinions were obviously clouded by misconceptions about Mr. James. I regret my earlier post about "showing him the door" and happily admit that I was wrong.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You rarely get perfect choices and elegant solutions, but my approach is to get as much data as is reasonable.

    Your approach is to type a lot and say nothing of any import at all. 6 to 7 year contracts on Crawford are not "tough calls", and it's no suprise that you were a cheerleader of that stupid contract offer and that stupid Crawbust and Ellspuff ad" we won't rest until the last out" NESN ad that was designed for idiots like you. (Note for idiots like Joeybride, Crawbust and Ellspuff cost nearly 30 million for 2012, which is one of the biggest ripoffs in MLB history. Yet, the incomeptent Cherry sells low on Crawbust to deflect from his own incompetence.

    [/QUOTE]

    Softlaw caught in another lie.  I didn't like the Crawford signing and said so at the time.

    Yet Softlaw complains about us trading him.

    Sorry Softlaw, but CC didn't work out for you and he had to go.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to bellhorn_'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wonderful post-trade results for the gutless clubhouse lawyering rat Adrian Gonzalez:

    But Gonzalez simply didn't hit after joining the Dodgers, at least until his final two weeks. He hit .297/.344/.441 in 36 games with Los Angeles, though he ended the year on a 15-game hitting streak. That streak helped Gonzalez improve his Dodger numbers so they didn't look eerily close to the .245/.291/.360 provided by James Loney and Juan Rivera as first basemen this season. Gonzalez went 25 full games and 115 plate appearances without a home run until hitting a pair of long balls on Sunday in Sept. 23.

     

     

    _________________________________

     

    Curt Schilling Deadbeat Fraud Clown

    [/QUOTE]

    The results are the results.  When a guy is there only 36 games, it doesn't make sense to start cutting up an already insignificant sample size into even smaller bites.  Sorry Adrian had to tell the FO what everyone else in the world already knew about BV, but someone had to stand up for the good of the team.  BV should've gone at the AS break.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    .  I didn't like the Crawford signing and said so at the time.

    Yet Softlaw complains about us trading him.

    Sorry Softlaw, but CC didn't work out for you and he had to go.

    Joey making a bad attempt to lie about tax breaks overseas and Crawford. Softlaw is the only poster who said, before the fact:

    "Avoid Crawford like the Plague"

    And whimpy wittle Joey boasts "I didn't like the Crawford signing and said so at the time". In fact, your protest was meaker than that cheesy NESN ad for clueless fans like wittle Joey.

    Sorry, Joey, it was almost as incompetent to sell low on Crawford as it was to buy the lemon to start with. He didn't work out like that NESN ad you salivated over, but are too much of a coward to admit it.  

    [/QUOTE]


     

    It is spelled "meek".

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    .  I didn't like the Crawford signing and said so at the time.

    Yet Softlaw complains about us trading him.

    Sorry Softlaw, but CC didn't work out for you and he had to go.

    Joey making a bad attempt to lie about tax breaks overseas and Crawford. Softlaw is the only poster who said, before the fact:

    "Avoid Crawford like the Plague"

    And whimpy wittle Joey boasts "I didn't like the Crawford signing and said so at the time". In fact, your protest was meaker than that cheesy NESN ad for clueless fans like wittle Joey.

    Sorry, Joey, it was almost as incompetent to sell low on Crawford as it was to buy the lemon to start with. He didn't work out like that NESN ad you salivated over, but are too much of a coward to admit it.  

    [/QUOTE]

    1-You'll have to explain to me what CC has to do with overseas tax breaks.  It is a non-sequitar.

    2-Define a meak protest is.  You like or you don't like it.  I didn't like it.

    3-Selling low?  You need to move away from the meth labs.  We basically gave up three weak to bad contracts that we should be lucky to have gotten rid of for free.  The fumes from the lab must be getting to you if you think anyone would even claim CC on waivers for nothing.

    You've become delusional.  It also gutless to call someone names over the safety of the internet.  You know you;d never do that in real life, unless of course, you happen to be in NY sometime.  I'll let you know where we can talk.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    The thread is about Bill James and his stance on the Crawford signing. Someone should research it and find out and be done with it. He was either for it or against it.

    It's already been posted-he didn't like it.  Softlaw has snapped again.  I assume he's dropped his medication again.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Did Bill James Denounce the Crawford FA contract offer?

    In response to pike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The thread is about Bill James and his stance on the Crawford signing. Someone should research it and find out and be done with it. He was either for it or against it.

    John Henry was against it and qualified his answer by stating that we didn't need another left handed bat in the OF. The forum hated that answer since they were more interested in bashing Henry. Many were against the acquisition for the same reasons but never came in to defend the owner ( taboo in this forum).

    [/QUOTE]


    Read the article posted by RedSoxKimmi. It opened my eyes.

     

Share