The Great #6org Discussion – Part 4
Okay, wrapping things up.
So what I’m getting at is that the only way to have a satisfying conversation about this sort of thing is to develop some objective standards and quantifiable measurements for these rankings.
This was one of the big complaints about the series from many people – too much opinion, not enough quantification. So, next year, we’ll do things differently. We’ll be far more clear about the respective ratings for each area and the weights that are given to those strengths and weaknesses. There will always be subjectivity in the rankings, of course, since we’re dealing with perceptions of things, but I agree that we can do a better job of explaining things. We’ll try to make them more transparent next year.
You show no acknowledgement for your ranking, if anything you seem more entrenched in your view, when tons of reasonable people have i think made some decisive points in your direction.
That was not at all the intention of this little project. If that’s how it has come across, I’m sorry. I hoped that we could actually have a conversation about the thoughts that went into the ranking, getting beyond basic assumptions of bias and discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the logic that I tried to employ. Based on the responses, it looks like it wasn’t all that successful. That’s somewhat disappointing, but understandable I guess.
But, it seems like most people aren’t really interested in talking about the sausage making process. They just want an apology or an admission of error. So, this is for all of you who fall into that category.
You were right. I was wrong. The Mariners have had a bad year. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have ranked them as highly.
There you go. Tomorrow – back to baseball.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I enjoy about learning how the sausage is made. I hope I’m in the majority and that the minority is merely very vocal.
I agree, Double06.
Dave, this was a very nice and thoughtful series of posts. It strikes me as very, very mature, and I really liked it.
Thank you very much. I never wanted your head on a pike, and I, at least, am very impressed by your willingness to engage your critics.
Really? These posts are rife with faux-sincerity. Even in his admission of guilt… reread it again:
“You were right. I was wrong.”
Childish and patronizing. He took all of the comments and focused on the unconstructive ones. He attempted to address the issues people had with his line of reasoning, but he never really engaged them fully.
“The Mariners have had a bad year. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have ranked them as highly.”
Predicting a good or bad year was nowhere near the point of the original exercise. He knows that and we (the intelligent reader) know that. We know the Ms had a better than decent chance to go deep into the playoffs this year considering how they were built, and a “bad year” is expected some of the time. He admitted no guilt, no wrongdoing. He acted as if he was talking to a child during the entire exercise because of a few vocal posters who were acting childish.
In the end, Dave truly does have difficulty defending himself in a public forum. It’s too bad because he is a smart and talented guy. Even in the daily chats he shows hints of disrespect when it’s far from necessary.
Hopefully he loses the chip on his shoulder sooner rather than later, because this site is only getting bigger.
“But, it seems like most people aren’t really interested in talking about the sausage making process. They just want an apology or an admission of error. So, this is for all of you who fall into that category. ”
Yeah, this was the most frustrating angle for me. It’s always more interesting to have a discussion. Personally, I probably overrated the Mariners for Jack Z’s first off-season. His second wasn’t nearly as good. And that’s not just based on results, because there were a few head scratchers at the time.
The other frustrating thing is how many people see the M’s 2010 record as proof of a total fail. The FO is still pretty smart, contracts are coming off the books, good contracts remain, the farm system might even be stronger, the payroll should be top third, and the disappointments are due for a rebound.
Not that #6 wasn’t too high.
No, I think most people aren’t as interested in the sausage making process as they are in what went wrong in the process that led this one sausage seemingly being so much worse than the rest. Dave has really only sat here and tried to defend why he made the ranking instead of talking about where things went wrong. There’s nothing constructive that comes from talking about the process. Most of us already understood the thinking that led to the ranking. We were far more interested in where the thinking went wrong than the thinking itself.
No, this isn’t the one that was “so much worse than the rest” — that would be the one that Dave has acknowledged and nobody else has mentioned, namely, the Brewers. But of course, nobody cares about that one, because that doesn’t fit the simplistic narrative that “Dave’s stupid because he’s a biased fanboy.” This whole discussion is less about people caring whether the ranking was correct or not and more about people wanting to be told they were right to disagree with it in the first place — regardless of what the reasons were either behind the ranking or behind their opposition.
I don’t remember nearly as many people saying from the get go that the Brewers ranking was terrible. Almost every commenter thought the M’s ranking was bad at the time it happened, and here we are after 3/4 of a season talking about how bad it was. I’m also not sure how the Brewers ranking was so much worse considering that they were 6 spots lower, are doing better this year, and arguably have the better young core going forward.
So? How is that relevant to which one is *actually* worse? As a determinant of the bias of commenters here, it’s useful information, but otherwise, it’s meaningless.
How is it relevant that the ranking that people thought was the worst of the bunch turned out to be, at the very least, one of the worst of the bunch? Maybe it means that everyone else was right, Dave was wrong, and we should explore where his thought process went wrong.
I also like how you completely failed to address how the Brewers ranking was worse than the M’s. Higher ranking, worse results, and not really in a much better position to contend going forward.
BTW do Mariners fans actually think that all the vitriol about the M’s ranking #6 is because people are biased against them and not because it was a ranking that was questionable at the time and looks pretty awful right now? Seriously?
confirmation bias?
How so? People said they didn’t have a very good cuurent, didn’t have a good farm system, and Jack Z wasn’t the magician that Dave made him out to be. There was no reason to rank them #6 unless you thought Jack Z was far and away the best GM in the game. It was a dumb ranking from the get go.
This whole worthless exercise is really about one man’s opinion, the thought processes behind that opinion, and people disagreeing with him. Some of the latter are really just insecure idiots who get their jollies over someone’s opinion on a certain probability not panning out.
I mean, really, people are DEMANDING APOLOGIES. Did Dave kill your dog or something? The level of discourse here is frankly appalling.
Regarding the Brewers, you’re definitely missing something here. Dave’s point about the Brewers was that his error was in ranking them too low, not too high. I don’t think you can accuse someone of failing to address your point when you didn’t have a point to begin with.
I just don’t get what was so bad about Jack’s 2nd offseason.
Silva for Milton? Yes please. 1000 times out of 1000.
Sign Chone Figgins? Yes, definitely. Contract made a lot of sense and he can STILL have enough value to make it worth it over the last 3 years.
Morrow for League/Chavez? No, this appears to be a loss. Morrow is a valuable starter. But would he have made such changes in Seattle? We’ll never know. And Chavez has turned into an interesting prospect. And maybe the next manager will handle League better. It’s not as big a loss as it seems. And the process was still fundamental?
Re-sign Griffey? Bad move. Cost almost nothing.
Trade for Cliff Lee? Amazing move still.
Silva for Bradley and the Cliff Lee trades were excellent, but the Chone Figgins signing had a lot of risk in it (signing a 2-3 WAR player to his age 32-36 season for a reasonable large contract can never be described as “definitely yes”), and I don’t think you can characterize signing Griffey or trading Morrow for League/Chavez as anything other than terrible.
The Morrow deal, Griffey, failing to do better than Kotchman (although it wasn’t a horrible risk). Jack Wilson was iffy. Figgins was a plus, but not a huge plus.
It wasn’t a bad off-season, just not up to the gold standard of the previous year. And a team with a A- front office (say) isn’t as good as a team with an A+ front office.
Dave, I think the biggest problem is that you haven’t focused at all on what you were wrong about. It seemed that you were mostly trying to explain why you rated the Mariners so highly instead of exploring (in any way at all really) what led you to rank them too highly. Now, your response is to storm off and not try to understand where you went wrong. That’s too bad because I think that’s where the most productive discussion would have taken place.
You really want more??? Why in the world do we need more?
I don’t want more of the same thing. I’d like Dave to actually address what it is he missed that made this particular ranking so wrong. I guess that’s too much to ask.
I’d like for him to address some of the good points that have been brought up by rational people ever since this was first posted so long ago.
He says he wants to discuss the sausage making, but completely ignores relevant points. What about regressing expectations of a GM with a small sample size (albeit promising) like you would a player and how that would help with claims of bias? What about the fact that even with a 50-60% weighting of the Management, an admittedly (below?) average current talent and ~average future talent results in a ranking around 8 despite a number one Management ranking? And does he think the Mariners’ Management deserve to be rated as the best in all of baseball after such a small sample? That’s a corollary off the regression question, but still relevant.
And now Ancient Mariner can come and ridicule me while either misrepresenting what I’ve said or start with ad hominem insults since I’m obviously wrong for strongly disagreeing with Dave.
Yeah, but Dave Cameron isn’t ever wrong. He’s only ever right about the wrong particulars.
And he doesn’t make predictions, only statements about the probabilities of success, which totally aren’t predictions. These rankings aren’t predictions of success. They are “just trying to show which ones may have the best chance at continued success.”
ughh
I guess I don’t understand what the disconnect is for you… a statement about the current probabilities of success is NOT anything close to a “prediction.” A prediction is a foretelling of what you believe WILL happen, not an assesment of the current probabilities of what COULD happen. There actualy is a big difference.
In the words of Inigo Montoya; “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
A prediction is a statement made about the future. I’m not sure where the disconnect is for you.
Every statement about the future is not a prediction.
If I say “It will rain tomorrow,” and it doesn’t rain, that was a prediction and I was wrong.
If I say “There’s a 60% chance of rain tomorrow,” and it doesn’t rain, I wasn’t wrong – something from the other 40% of possibilities occurred instead.
My favorite thing about this mini-argument is that unlike most of the discussion here where reasonable people can disagree, DavidCEisen is completely, 100%, indefensibly wrong, and yet continues to defend his patently absurd grammatical argument just so he can take a swipe at Dave.
You must lead a truly fascinating life, David.
Words have meanings and sometime those meanings are inconvenient. The Oxford English Dictionary defines prediction (n) as “The action of predicting future events; an instance of this, a prophecy, a forecast.” and predict (v) as “To state or estimate, esp. on the basis of knowledge or reasoning, that (an action, event, etc.) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something; to forecast, foretell, prophesy. Also with clause as object.” Just so we are clear, Dave is estimating a forecast of future success. Me stating that this is a prediction is backed up by the actual meaning of prediction. You stating that it is not a prediction is backed up by your hatred of dictionaries.
Now on to your great example. “If I say “There’s a 60% chance of rain tomorrow,” and it doesn’t rain, I wasn’t wrong – something from the other 40% of possibilities occurred instead.” Ok, but that’s still a prediction, so what is your point? Also if you made that statement 365 days in row you could say “Well I was never wrong.” I could then reply “Well you were never helpful either.”
Dave Cameron is doing the same thing. He’s hiding behind the argument that “Well I was right about all of these things, but all of these other things happened that I didn’t foresee, so I wasn’t wrong.” Maybe not, but he wasn’t being helpful either.
Oh and JH, I do live a very enjoyable life, thank you for realizing that.
>>Me stating that this is a prediction is backed up by the actual meaning of prediction. You stating that it is not a prediction is backed up by your hatred of dictionaries.<>Now on to your great example. “If I say “There’s a 60% chance of rain tomorrow,” and it doesn’t rain, I wasn’t wrong – something from the other 40% of possibilities occurred instead.” Ok, but that’s still a prediction, so what is your point?<<
My point is that's NOT a prediction. I'm not foretelling what will happen, I'm stating the range of probabilities of what could happen, based on what I currently know. I'm sure it appears like we're just arguing semantics here, but there's a pretty basic difference between the two that seems to be at the crux of your issue with Dave. I'm not here to defend him or the ranking, just pointing out that a better understanding of probabilities/predictions would help alleviate some of your hatred for him.
And I actually love dictionaries. And thesauri too! Imagine that.
In fact I almost posted a definition of “prediction” myself earlier, but I figured that would be over the top. The fact that you posted one in defense of your argument tells me that we would just keep going in circles here. But that’s cool… I’ll move on.
Hahaha, so the definition of predict is “To state or estimate, esp. on the basis of knowledge or reasoning, that (an action, event, etc.) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.” (again the OED here). You admit you are “stating the range of probabilities of what could happen, based on what I currently know.” And I’m the one having a semantic argument?
Also posting a definition of a word that you accuse me of not understanding is me going in circles? How dare I bring facts into an argument! How dare I back my point up with what is quite possibly the worlds most respected dictionary! How dare I not just let you make up definitions to words!
I don’t hate Dave Cameron. In fact I generally like Dave’s writing and think he often makes very interesting points. Further, I believe Dave is an intelligent person who knows a lot about baseball. However I do not believe Dave is infallible. Dave’s entire reasoning set forth in the 2nd post about the #6org was based on faulty logic. My point is, and always has been, the rankings are pointless and based off of bad assumptions.
>>Hahaha, so the definition of predict is “To state or estimate, esp. on the basis of knowledge or reasoning, that (an action, event, etc.) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.” (again the OED here). You admit you are “stating the range of probabilities of what could happen, based on what I currently know.” And I’m the one having a semantic argument?<<
Exactly. To "state or estimate that (an action, event, etc.) WILL happen in the future or WILL be a consequence of something," is different than "stating the range of probabilities of what COULD happen."
Again, I'm not here to defend Dave or the rankings. I think they're a fun exercise, but they're subjective and you can feel free to disagree.
I'm just pointing out that there is a huge difference between saying "These organizations currently have the best probabilities of success in the future," and saying "These organizationis will have success in the future."
Oh boy, and you’re accusing me of semantics. The definition of predict includes estimating what will happen, it isn’t some absolutist term you seem to believe it is, neither is the word ‘will.’
“There is a 60% chance it WILL rain tomorrow.” “There is a 25% chance the Yankees WILL win the World Series this year.” “I think this WILL happen…” “I believe there is a slight chance this Will occur.” ect, ect.
You’re obviously grabbing at straws.
.
And you obviously don’t understand probabilities.
Probability is an expression of the likelihood that something WILL happen. Obviously you have you own private definitions of words, so honestly arguing with you is pointless.
To make the argument further grammatical. It would be incorrect to state: “There is a 60% chance it COULD rain tomorrow.” If there is is a chance that it WILL rain tomorrow then there is a 100% possibility it COULD rain tomorrow. Logically there is either a 0% or 100% possibility something could happen. Something could happen or could not happen. But there are degrees of possibility that something WILL occur.
Re: will vs. could
Why don’t you use your dictionary to look up the word “subjunctive”
I hope you’re not referring to me. Subjunctive verbs are used in cases in which uncertain events are being discussed–not factual statements. For example: “It could rain tomorrow.” This sentence expresses only that it may rain tomorrow, but doesn’t express the likelihood of the event. It is an opinion and can not be proven wrong.
If I want to discuss the probability that an event will occur, I would state “There is a 60% chance it will rain tomorrow,” which could be proven wrong with enough information. However the statement does rest on the assumption that it could rain tomorrow.
In other words, anything that could happen has a probability that it will happen.
Good luck with the project next year, Dave. I will look forward to the analysis.
I also look forward to it. Dave — maybe you should put it behind a paywall? That way, only us Cameronheads will be forced to read what I considered an engaging series, and we can continue to honor you with our sycophantic mewlings and shower you with our gold coin.
Huzzah Dave! Huzzah Seattle!
I’m sure that felt good to get out of your system.
I for one wasn’t particularly interested in this whole controversy until I read through your explanations. On behalf of the readers who come to this site with an open mind instead of a read pen, thank you for granting us this glimpse into your mind.
Don’t you generally write with a pen?
Sorry, sorry…
red pen*
I think this series was kind of silly overall, but interesting. Obviously, Dave’s intention was to say that the org was the 6th best org because of their prospects, their financial position, their Braintrust (Z et al) and their existing roster. The existing roster FAILED but there is no reason to think the rest of the options failed (maybe Z…).
So Dave, does the failure of the team this year mean that they in fact are a worse team for 2011? For 2012?
Obviously the Bradley failure hurts and means he can’t be expected to produce next year, and they weren’t able to trade Lopez for crap because he was crap. But other than that, this team should be expected to win around 75-85 games next year, if their offense (Ichiro/Figgins) produce a career norms. They need to put some people around them (DH/1B/C?/SS!) but all but SS are easy fills from the free agent land. This is a team that doesn’t have money issues and can expect a huge burst of revenue if they do compete (those fair weather fans of Seattle). With that pitching staff, with the core of Guit/Felix/Ich/Figgins and expected growth from Saunders/(someone in the pitching staff) there is expectations of competing in the West next year.
Because of that, how can one say the Organization Ranking was wrong. I say it wasn’t. Go Dave!
Dave talked about the expected 2011 Mariners back in June, when it was painfully apparently that they were out of the race. Note that this was before the Cliff Lee trade, and the ascension of Michael Pineda as a top pitching prospect.
http://www.ussmariner.com/2010/06/10/the-2011-mariners/
Still a lot of work to get next year’s team into place.
So they can expect to be around .500 a year after being one of the worst teams in the league and they don’t have a particularly strong farm system, but hey, they’re definitely one of the top organizations in baseball!!!!
The horse has been dead for quite some time, you might want to stop
Dead horse or not, he has a point.
Jared has aides
“How can one say the organization ranking was wrong?” Easy: by observing that one of its key underpinnings — the alleged superiority of the “Brain Trust” — has been called very strongly into question, partly through their bad decision making, and partly by having some of their alleged “good” decisions getting exposed as not being as good as the touts thought. And that exactly that mismatch between expectation and experience was recognized by all the people criticizing the ranking when it was first posted. That’s how.
This isn’t a failure of method. The model that Dave used for the rankings worked pretty well for the large majority of teams. Rather, it’s a failure to apply the method in an unblinkered, eyes-wide-open way.
“Easy: by observing that one of its key underpinnings — the alleged superiority of the “Brain Trust” — has been called very strongly into question, partly through their bad decision making, and partly by having some of their alleged “good” decisions getting exposed as not being as good as the touts thought.”
This is dumb, ex ante analysis. Nobody at the time questioned whether the decisions were good; everyone simply accepted that they were. Go point out to me in the original discussion where people thought Figgins was a dumb signing, or that the team would finish way below the .500 mark everyone projected them to be.
The Mariners current talent is much worse than everyone thought. That obviously will affect the ranking. The problem is, however, that a lot of you bleaters fail to say how given what we knew at the time (that this roster is a .500 team, not a .400 team) the #6 ranking is unjustified.
A lot of are simply too braindead to see past your own biases. Talk about hypocrisy. You might very well be right that a #6 ranking is too high for a team that’s only projected to finish .500 in the near future. But the fact that they finished .400 does not in any way prove your weighting of current talent is more “accurate” than Dave’s. Basically, the current season says nothing about Dave’s internal weightings and you’re just out to look for blood over a stupid and inconsequential thing as someone’s opinion on baseball management.
“This is dumb, ex ante analysis. Nobody at the time questioned whether the decisions were good; everyone simply accepted that they were. Go point out to me in the original discussion where people thought Figgins was a dumb signing, or that the team would finish way below the .500 mark everyone projected them to be.”
Many people said it at the time and many people have said it in these discussions. There were other sites too outside of Fangraphs where this was discussed and these points were brought up. There was a lot of doubt with the actual talent of the Mariners as well as the future talent of the Mariners. This was of course met with, “Trust us, the front office got this.”
Ah, sarcasm…the last refuge of those who feel backed into a corner…
“I said I was wrong, but I said it sarcastically…therefore I don’t really mean it, but I don’t have to explain myself any further either. ”
Spare me. I thought I was done with that crap in junior high.
Ahh, the accusation of sarcasm . . . the last refuge of those who want to dismiss others. You have absolutely no grounds for your accusation beyond your own assumption of bad motives, which probably qualifies you to run for national political office, but doesn’t do much for the discussion.
Ah, so I should assume Dave was 100% sincere when he said that he was wrong? Uhhhhmmm….okay.
It’s not wrong to assume someone is sarcastic when all signs point that way. If something quacks like a duck, I’m going to assume it’s a duck until further notice.
Or maybe Dave is tired of giving the time of day to cranks? Cranks who haven’t accepted any of the explanations and are continuing to spew vitriol all over the comments thread?
Have you read any of the comments thread? People are calling for “mea culpas”. They want Dave to admit he was “wrong”. They want Dave to basically commit seppuku in public just to satisfy their own rage over an organizational ranking made FIVE FUCKING MONTHS AGO.
These man-children are not getting over it and are instead continuing to use it as a basis to attack every opinion Dave has. You can forgive Dave if he’s a little tired of dealing with shitheads.
A lot of us want Dave to talk about why he was wrong, that’s what would be interesting to discuss. Most of us already knew Dave was wrong, we really don’t need him to come out and say it. We just want to know what he was wrong about that led him to the ranking.
>>A lot of us want Dave to talk about why he was wrong, that’s what would be interesting to discuss.>>
Why would that be interesting?
>>Most of us already knew Dave was wrong, we really don’t need him to come out and say it.>>
Oh.
>>We just want to know what he was wrong about that led him to the ranking.>>
This whole absolutist approach that Dave, or you, or other disagreers of the rankings, were “right” or “wrong” is really stupid. It’s subjectivity. You can’t be wrong for saying “this is what I think” unless you say something that can be empirically proven wrong such as “I think the sea is made of Jello-O”. Unless someone actually took the time to turn the seas into Jell-O, you’re going to be demonstratively wrong.
Also, it’s easy to criticize Dave. He’s putting his work out here that everybody can go back and look at and analyze. Where’s your analysis? If you want to declare yourself “right”, maybe you should provide your work that showed your empirical insight into these rankings. Bonus points if you did your analysis back when Dave did his, because otherwise we’re going to be stuck with an assumption that you’re just armchair quarterbacking.
So before you go declaring “right” and “wrong” like you’re somehow the arbiter of opinions, maybe you should provide some more insight into yourself.
Why would it be more interesting for Dave to assess why he was wrong? Because we learn more from our mistakes than our successes. Its really as simple as that. Dave’s responses as come across as him trying to justify his preseason ranking without him ever actually looking at something and saying “Hey, I was wrong about that, and here’s why…”
Your argument about subjectivity is pretty ridiculous in this case. Sure, in the end it could come out that Dave was right, but given the new information we have at hand now it seems unlikely. Further, given the new information we have, the Mariners would certainly rank lower, possibly significantly so. IMO that makes the initial ranking wrong, though feel free to disagree.
I don’t have a website where I express my opinions, thus I don’t feel any need to prove I was right about anything. Dave offers his opinion on this website (as he says its his full time job) and they choose to allow commenting. As long as that’s the case people are going to express their opinions about things. I don’t quite understand why you’re trying to make this about me. Dave messed up and he’s apparently willing to admit as much (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that he was just acting like a petulant child making a sarcastic apology or whatever you want to call it). I’d personally like to understand what caused him to mess instead of explanations for his initial opinion.
>>Why would it be more interesting for Dave to assess why he was wrong? Because we learn more from our mistakes than our successes.>>
Well, since you’re already right, you’re not going to learn anything from Dave’s mistakes, are you?
If you think Dave should learn from his own mistakes, then what makes you think talking about it here would make any difference? He can do that without satisfying the egos of the people who already think they’re right.
>>Dave’s responses as come across as him trying to justify his preseason ranking without him ever actually looking at something and saying “Hey, I was wrong about that, and here’s why…”>>
So? People wanted an explanation of the preseason prediction He’s providing it. What’s the problem?
>>Your argument about subjectivity is pretty ridiculous in this case. Sure, in the end it could come out that Dave was right, but given the new information we have at hand now it seems unlikely.>>
Armchair quarterbacking.
>>Further, given the new information we have, the Mariners would certainly rank lower, possibly significantly so. IMO that makes the initial ranking wrong, though feel free to disagree.>>
I will. The initial ranking was not based on the information you have now. If you had this information then, and still make that ranking, then you would be wrong. But since this was unknown then, despite some people who seem to magically think they knew this was going to happen then, it is pointless to compare now to then.
>>I don’t have a website where I express my opinions, thus I don’t feel any need to prove I was right about anything.>>
Convenient.
>>Dave offers his opinion on this website (as he says its his full time job) and they choose to allow commenting. As long as that’s the case people are going to express their opinions about things. I don’t quite understand why you’re trying to make this about me.>>
Unless you’re the voicebox for the teeming masses of “#6 ORG LOLZ” troll then you speak for yourself. Since you’re the one spouting “right” or “wrong” here, I’m directing this squarely at you. You make the declaration of rights or wrongs, therefore you have to substantiate your claims. That’s just basic logic.
>>Dave messed up and he’s apparently willing to admit as much (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that he was just acting like a petulant child making a sarcastic apology or whatever you want to call it). I’d personally like to understand what caused him to mess instead of explanations for his initial opinion.>>
Firstly, I don’t think Dave thinks he messed up at all. At least not to the level that some of the critics are bringing to bear. You seem to believe that the Mariners would be “significantly” ranked lower now. I’d like to know what you consider to be a satisfactory ranking based on what you know now. If Dave comes out and says “I’d probably drop them 4 slots to 10th overall”, would you still have a cow?
Secondly, again, you’re taking the approach that you’re somehow empirically correct and Dave isn’t. The question is, “what was wrong”? Was it the process? Was it the ranking? What do you feel he was “wrong” about.
I find it highly unhealthy that you’re so obsessed about getting someone to discuss why he was “wrong.” It’s a little patronizing, to be honest. But in any case, Dave has already discussed how he was wrong. He overvalued the current talent. Since a large part of the ranking stems from that, #6 is clearly too high.
I must have missed the part where Dave came out and said he overvalued the current talent. All I saw was talk about a high variance roster and how everything broke bad.
What I really would have liked to see was Dave talk about whether he thought the Jack Z and company were better than they now appear and/or if he thinks he overvalued the importance of front offices in the exercise. As I’ve mentioned before, I’d love to see him discuss if he focused too much on major league decision-making (and willingness to use numbers) while overlooking certain organizations ability to scout amateur talent well and develop players in the minor leagues. I think these sorts of things would be more interesting to discuss than the M’s high variance roster and what not. And before you say anything I realize he “answered” a question on the importance of front offices, but it mostly turned into him trying to justify his original stance as opposed to actually re-evaluating it.
I think Dave could have allowed people a better look into his decision making and where he went wrong and we all would have learned more from it. I think some of us may even realize that we maybe overvalue numbers oriented teams because they use the approach we use, without considering that scouting is very important (in some ways more so) but we feel less connected to it because we don’t have the access that teams have in that respect. I was honestly hoping for more from this whole exercise than Dave just trying to justify the ranking.
Clearly this discussion is going nowhere, so I’ll just leave it at that.
“I must have missed the part where Dave came out and said he overvalued the current talent. All I saw was talk about a high variance roster and how everything broke bad.”
That’s the same thing. He’s saying that he, like everyone else, overvalued the current talent, which was an important part of the ranking. You just don’t like the fact that people are pillorying Dave because the M’s vastly underperformed this year when none of those mouth-breathers were disagreeing with the .500 projections that Dave assumed when making the #6 ranking.
It goes like this:
1) Dave assumes .500 team with smart management + money is a recipe for Tampa Bay-style success.
2a) Some people disagree that the management is smart
2b) Some morons confuse this ranking with a 2010 predictions list and think a .500 team today should be nowhere near #6.
3) Mariners are really a .400 team.
4) Now those same morons are back, saying they were right all along and Dave is a biased fanboy and should cut himself.
I don’t think I need to explain how the leap from 3) to 4) requires the illogical gymnastics of our more feeble-minded readers.
“What I really would have liked to see was Dave talk about whether he thought the Jack Z and company were better than they now appear and/or if he thinks he overvalued the importance of front offices in the exercise.”
The problem is that there isn’t much to discuss on this front. In the 5 months since these rankings, the Mariner front office hasn’t done anything to disprove Dave’s notion that they’re smart. The Lee for Smoak trade was pretty good, so I hear. The only new countervailing information is that the current talent sucks.
>>What I really would have liked to see was Dave talk about whether he thought the Jack Z and company were better than they now appear and/or if he thinks he overvalued the importance of front offices in the exercise.>>
Hmm…
“My confidence in the front office has been lessened by some of their choices since the rankings were published. It’s still probably higher than most people’s, though, I would imagine.” – Dave Cameron (from Part 2’s comment thread)
Also…
“This is, I believe, where the largest disconnect in opinions comes from. I do believe that I value the non-player aspects of an organization more than most, or at least, that’s my perception based on the responses I’ve seen. In my opinion, the most important aspect of an organization’s future health is their continued access to capital and their ability to spend resources wisely. A large payroll team that knows what they are doing is, in many cases, in a better long term position than a team with better players in the organization that is either poorly capitalized or poorly managed.” – Dave Cameron (from Part 2, in response to the question: “Do you think you overvalued front office personnel, as opposed to player assets? (MLB and MiLB)”)
>>Clearly this discussion is going nowhere>>
Because you’re either a fucking idiot or can’t read.
Clearly I missed the part where Dave said he was less confident in the front office. However, I still would have liked to see discussion about where he currently stands and the particulars about what has made him less confident.
As for the discussion of about the importance of front offices, like I said I didn’t see that as a real discussion. Dave thinks its important, obviously, but he’s not taking an objective look at how important it is. He’s just claiming its more important than already having good players, but many of the best teams in the league right now developed their core internally and just supplemented it with smart decision making at the major league level. This is something Dave seems to have ignored with regards to the M’s.
As for people predicting them to be a .400 team, maybe no one came out and directly said that, but their were plenty of people who said they thought Dave was overrating the current roster at the time.
>>As for the discussion of about the importance of front offices, like I said I didn’t see that as a real discussion. Dave thinks its important, obviously, but he’s not taking an objective look at how important it is.>>
Can you? I’m very serious about this question. Apparently there are those who believe you can objectively prove one front office is better than another. This would require empirical evidence of which there is no subjectivity. It’s a pretty daunting task to try to come up with fact to support any front office ranking.
So, I’ll ask again, can you do it? Because if you can’t, you’re being unreasonable.
>>He’s just claiming its more important than already having good players, but many of the best teams in the league right now developed their core internally and just supplemented it with smart decision making at the major league level. This is something Dave seems to have ignored with regards to the M’s.>>
No he hasn’t. I don’t know where you get the idea that he has.
>>As for people predicting them to be a .400 team, maybe no one came out and directly said that, but their were plenty of people who said they thought Dave was overrating the current roster at the time.>>
Oh great. Next time we’ll listen to those guys because they made a vague prediction.
Hey idiot, don’t blame the commenters for raging over a tired old story. Dave you will remember is the one who decided it was a good idea to make this into four inopportune posts in the middle of August, not us. If his real goal was to discuss the thought process for how the ranking are made, why not wait until the 2011 rankings?
Isn’t your rage over the “manchildren” that continue to disagree with Dave, just as silly and unnecessary as the behavior you say you despise? You can’t seem to get over their insignificant comments, yet you go bananas when they have negative opinions over a significant writer’s articles.
Just for the record, when I’m perusing my favorite website that’s loaded with awesome free content, and I come across an opinion that I disagree with, I think to myself, “Hmm, I guess that author and I see things a little differently here.” And then I move on to some more awesome free content.
But maybe I’m just weird.
Well put Jerry.
And fangraphs does have a lot of awesome free content. Unfortunately that doesn’t include many of the comments lately, especially on this topic.
Actually you are weird if you think it is wrong to leave an opposing viewpoint in a comments section.
Some people may be under the delusion that leaving a comment that disagrees with the author’s viewpoint may lead to a better understanding of the subject by either the author or the commentor or lead to find things which will lead to better analysis inthe future.
… but maybe I’m just weird… I guess the comment sections is not meant for the possibility of an opposing viewpoint. Sure there are some bad apples, but that doesn’t mean all opposing viewpoints should be discounted.
It’s pretty obvious Jerry is only talking about the ‘bad apples.’
Yeah, I’m all for feedback and discourse. It just seems like almost every article these days is instantly greeted with several “OMG I disagree with you and therefore I feel compelled to call you an idiot” comments. That’s all.
Actually the only ones calling anyone an idiot are the Dave Cameron defenders. But don’t let that get in the way of creating a straw man!
You’re funny, David. There’s no strawman here.
I don’t care who’s defending whom, and I wasn’t even referencing this particular thread – just making a general observation. For example, the very first comment on the “#6org” article just previous to this one was an insightful little number ending with “Fuck you. You’re a hack.” Those are the kind of pointless comments I was talking about. That’s all, dude.
I very much enjoyed reading the rankings series, and whether the rankings were accurate or not was, for me, always second to the quality of analysis in the write-up. So, thanks, Dave, and everyone who worked on those, for making them so enjoyable and informative.
More transparency and clarity can only make these even better next year. Glad I have that to look forward to! (I mean, so long as the Twins are #1, you know.)
Even if it was that the Mariners had a bad year, it wasn’t based off JUST the current season, it had to do with potential, based off the current talent and future prospects. The Mariners can still turn it around (probably not this year, but next year), they have the talent and when their numbers come back to normal levels they’ll be right back up there with the division.
It’s true that they can turn it around and I think most expect them to be much better in 2 years. However, assuming a 37 y/o Ichiro regresses due to age next year, how many 4.0 WAR position players do you expect next year? The year after?
We all know that Felix is great, but how many of the guys behind him look like 4 WAR pitchers? Vargas and Fister have been ~average this year and will be 27. They may be a bit better, but who thinks they will be significantly better than average?
In three years, a productive Smoak, Saunders and Pineda could add to Felix to provide a core of elite young major league players, but there’s still the risk of prospects in addition to the seeming dearth of league average players on the MLB team that will have to be addressed. Again, I think they will be better, but they have a long way to go.
You think 4 WAR players or having X number of them are some sort of benchmark requirement for team success or something?
No, but they’re a lot easier to point to than a litany of average players that will (also) need to be brought in.
I’m confident they can find average players, even with their relative budget constraints, as soon as this offseason. However, that just makes them an average team next year.
Firstly, neither of us knows what’s going to happen with the Mariners next season. They could just do a youth movement, have Smoak, Ackley, Saunders, Moore, Pineda, Lueke, and others run amok, sink or swim, and let the season go. They could also do some more high variance signings in the free agency market / trades that may or may not do anything. Who knows.
Secondly, define average. “Average”, to me, is “league average” which is a 2 WAR player. If the entire 25 man roster averaged 2 WAR, you’d be looking at a 90ish win team.
Yeah, if you got 2 WAR out of a bunch of relievers and bench players you’d probably be pretty darn good, but that’s not going to happen because of limited playing time. A team where everyone would average about 2 WAR if given full playing time is a perfectly average team.
I meant average starter pitchers and regular position players. That’s ~14 2 WAR players, 28 total WAR and not a winning team. Sure, Felix is a lock to be above average and Ichiro and Gutierrez are very good bets, but after that? Why would you think I meant a full 25 man of 2 WAR players, other than you seem to assume the worst in each poster you respond to?
If they go with a youth movement next year, they are unlikely to be an above average team for a few reasons. Lack of quality depth to foster those players, adjustment time to the majors, and the possibility that they just won’t make it are the reasons that come immediately to mind.
A high variance team that doesn’t make it even to average, a full rebuilding year with youth movement, and then looking to break into above average territory in the third year? This hurts at least one of the two pivotal/controversial underpinnings of the original ranking: Mariners’ Management is that much better than the average Management team and that Management should be weighted that heavily.
Mariners clearly don’t deserve #6. It’s one thing to say they have a decent chance to go from .500 to a great club given smart management + money. It’s quite another to say they have a decent chance when their current talent level is .400. That’s a much larger hole to climb out of, no matter how smart you are.
>>I meant average starter pitchers and regular position players. That’s ~14 2 WAR players, 28 total WAR and not a winning team. Sure, Felix is a lock to be above average and Ichiro and Gutierrez are very good bets, but after that? Why would you think I meant a full 25 man of 2 WAR players, other than you seem to assume the worst in each poster you respond to?>>
Why would you assume that I thought you only meant 14 of 25 active major league roster players.
Do bullpen arms not ever produce or contribute to the WAR totals?
Do bench bats and utility guys not ever produce or contribute to the WAR totals?
That sounds lazy to me. But what do I know. You just assume that I assume things.
>>If they go with a youth movement next year, they are unlikely to be an above average team for a few reasons. Lack of quality depth to foster those players, adjustment time to the majors, and the possibility that they just won’t make it are the reasons that come immediately to mind.>>
Sure. They could also perform better than expected. Like I said originally, who knows. Making assumptions about it is kind of pointless until we know what the Mariners are actually going to do. Which takes us back to square one.
>>A high variance team that doesn’t make it even to average, a full rebuilding year with youth movement, and then looking to break into above average territory in the third year?>>
This is going to be infuriating, I can tell already.
>>This hurts at least one of the two pivotal/controversial underpinnings of the original ranking: Mariners’ Management is that much better than the average Management team and that Management should be weighted that heavily.>>
Right. So in your mind, success and results are the only things that dictate whether a management team, let’s call it the “Front Office”, is a good one and they’re doing their jobs right.
You seem to be ignoring probability because it hurts your argument. Dave already brought this up, but I’ll do it again, what was the probability of so many things going bad for the Mariners all happening at the same time?
Oh sure, it’s awfully easy for you to say that it was highly likely now. But since we can’t go back in time to the day the organizational rankings were made and say “Kotchman wont hit, Bradley wont hit, Lopez wont hit, Figgins wont hit… in fact, nobody on the team will hit and they will push historical badness in offensive run production”, we’re pretty much screwed.
Let’s also examine the high variance player point. High variance players are brought onto teams every year. Some work, some don’t. The Mariners were in an unenviable situation insofar as they had to use more of them than most other teams. 2010 was a high risk / high reward season. I think Dave said that back when he was making the rankings. But since the organizational ranking wasn’t JUST ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN 2010, we have to weigh it accordingly.
2010 was bad results, not bad processes. That’s the point. Jack Z and co are not diminished by their risks not panning out this season. If you go back to 2009, quite a few of the high risks panned out nicely. So what happened between 2009 and 2010 that suddenly makes Jack Z and Co look bad. Oh right, the results. Same process, different results.
If all you have to go by on criticism is that the results are bad and are ignoring the good results because it doesn’t fit your argument, then you’re doing this all wrong. The strength of the overall front office is more than just “2010 sucked”.
>>That’s a much larger hole to climb out of, no matter how smart you are.>>
2008 Mariners finished 61-101 for a .377 winning percentage.
2009 Mariners finished 85-77 for a .525 winning percentage.
Even if you want to say the 2009 Mariners outperformed, they still improved considerably over the 2008 squad. So, no, it’s not as hard as you think it is.
No, it’s not impossible, it’s just not likely enough to warrant #6 at this stage.
>>No, it’s not impossible, it’s just not likely enough to warrant #6 at this stage.>>
Which is a fine argument to have when next year’s organizational rankings come out. But it had no relevance on the rankings made this year.
A team full of “average” players and a team full of 2WAR players is not the same thing. That hypothetical team would have something like the best bullpen and bench in history. Only a handful of relievers each year eclipse the 2WAR mark.
A hypothetical team full of truly league average talent would be a true talent 81-win team.
It’s not that the other 11 players on the 25 man wouldn’t add WAR, it’s that they are highly unlikely to give you 2 WAR each. Right now, there are all of 4 relievers in the majors over 2 WAR. That will go up after the season ends, but it’s incredibly unlikely that you’ll have 5 on one team. I know this, you know this, let’s move on.
I understand your point about letting this season’s results affect the analysis at the time. I was originally replying to a post that was forward-looking, but let’s do what you are talking about. Even assuming the Mariners were a .500 team this year, the original #6 ranking is incorrect.
Assuming an average team and average future talent (which could both be argued as being worse), a weighting of the Front Office/Management component at 50% AND a number 1 ranking in this component would not have resulted in a #6 ranking. It would have been more like 8.
I disagree with rating them as the best in that component, especially after such a small sample size. I think once you start rating the Front Office/Management component more than 60%, it starts to defeat the purpose of an organizational ranking and just becomes a set of opinions on the one component.
Regarding your last point about the Mariners turnaround from 2008 to 2009: I think it would be much more difficult to turn around next year. I’m not sure about the Angels, but I imagine both the Rangers and Athletics as having win projections in the high 80s and the Angels likely to spend their way into at least legitimate mediocrity. In addition to a more difficult environment than the 2009 Mariners had, there likely be little financial flexibility. But this is less relevant to the topic of these discussions.
JH
>>A hypothetical team full of truly league average talent would be a true talent 81-win team.>>
A replacement level team would win ~48 games. A team full of players 2 wins above replacement level should win ~50 more ball games. But, thanks to the diminishing return value on wins over a certain point, it would still be more than 81. No, I don’t know what the exact number would be, but a “league average” team is not the same thing as a .500 team.
>>Even assuming the Mariners were a .500 team this year, the original #6 ranking is incorrect.>>
Once again, can we stop applying absolute terms like “right”, “wrong”, “incorrect”, etc onto this? It’s a subjective opinion. It can’t be “wrong” unless it can be empirically or demonstratively proven incorrect.
Anyway, the #6 ranking had little to do with the actual Mariners team for 2010 and more to do with the overall organizational health of the franchise. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. The Mariners were in a strong position with an up and coming set of prospects in the minors, a smart front office, and a strong core of talent.
Now you guys are using 2010’s results to dictate that the Mariners did not have a strong core of talent. The thing to understand is that most of the underperforming players aren’t in that core of talent. Kotchman is not a part of the long term future. Lopez is gone after this season. Bradley was brought in to help this season but wasn’t looked as a long term solution The only ones that really are a harm to the core are Figgins and Rowland-Smith. Gutierrez is still there, Felix is still there, Ichiro is still there. Saunders is developing, Moore is developing, etc.
Nothing important has changed. I would argue that with the addition of Smoak, the team’s overall health has gotten better. However, this is for discussion in next season’s rankings, not for this seasons.
>>Assuming an average team and average future talent (which could both be argued as being worse), a weighting of the Front Office/Management component at 50% AND a number 1 ranking in this component would not have resulted in a #6 ranking. It would have been more like 8.>>
Would #8 have made you happy? I don’t think it would have made everybody happy. There were already people groaning that the Mariners were in the top 10. Since the ranking was subjective, I don’t really see what everybody’s growling about.
>>I disagree with rating them as the best in that component, especially after such a small sample size. I think once you start rating the Front Office/Management component more than 60%, it starts to defeat the purpose of an organizational ranking and just becomes a set of opinions on the one component.>>
Jack Z and co as the GM might be a small sample size, but he’s been in baseball for a long time, so it’s not like he’s a complete novice. And, also, overall Mariners financial situation is not. They’ve been making money quite regularly now for at least 15 years. They’ve had strong media ties and good television broadcast deals. They’ve had lots of extra revenue from Japanese sources thanks to Ichiro. They’ve had their fingers in the international market for ages. Really, the only thing to “small sample” about is Jack Z. So if your argument is that Jack Zduriencik hasn’t “earned” the high praise he’s received, you’re still doing the overall Mariners organization a disservice.
I wonder what your opinion of Alex Anthopoulos is.
>>Regarding your last point about the Mariners turnaround from 2008 to 2009: I think it would be much more difficult to turn around next year. I’m not sure about the Angels, but I imagine both the Rangers and Athletics as having win projections in the high 80s and the Angels likely to spend their way into at least legitimate mediocrity. In addition to a more difficult environment than the 2009 Mariners had, there likely be little financial flexibility. But this is less relevant to the topic of these discussions.>>
Yeah, I’m actually looking forward to the debates next season. I think all of this controversy has really fired some people up about perceptions of organizational health. Should be a lot of fun.
TIF: You’re dead wrong. Like, not based on opinion, factually. 2 WAR is league average over a full season. All 25 members of the team don’t play full seasons. A league average pitcher who pitches a league average # of innings doesn’t produce 2 WAR. Nothing close to it. Only the Mariano Riveras of the world reach that number. A team full of 25 league average players doesn’t have 25 2WAR players. If it did, then a league average team would win 98 games.
81 wins is the league average record, because every time a team wins a game, another one loses. A team with true, 100%, non-varying league average talent would be an 81-win true talent team. Not a 90-win team.
League Average = 2WAR for regulars. For position players, that means over 600 plate appearances. Not sure what the innings # is for starters. A 2WAR reliever is NOT a league average player for his position. He’s elite. Like, top-5 elite.
The team you’re talking about, where everyone is 2 WAR, is a team with league average regulars and hall of fame level role players.
That third line should read: a league average reliever who pitches an average # of innings for a reliever is not 2 WAR.
JH,
I think this argument has become a series of misunderstandings. Originally GhostBear only meant the 14 or so important starters, whereupon I meant all 25. When I was saying “average of 2 WAR each” I meant for the overall team. If the 14 regulars all put up a combined 40 WAR and the bullpen arms, backups, and random players somehow managed 10, that would be a 50 WAR team over 25 position players, or an average of 2 WAR per person.
That’s what I meant. I didn’t mean everybody was going to pull a straight out 2 WAR. As you pointed out, that’s just not probable within the scope of reality.
Idiot, this is for concerning your third comment.
“Sure. They could also perform better than expected. Like I said originally, who knows. Making assumptions about it is kind of pointless until we know what the Mariners are actually going to do. Which takes us back to square one.”
Who knows? Making assumptions is pointless? Until we actually know what the Mariners are going to do? OK lets have a look at your next comment.
“Right. So in your mind, success and results are the only things that dictate whether a management team, let’s call it the “Front Office”, is a good one and they’re doing their jobs right.
You seem to be ignoring probability because it hurts your argument. Dave already brought this up, but I’ll do it again, what was the probability of so many things going bad for the Mariners all happening at the same time?”
So. Which was is it idiot? Do you use the available info to predict the PROBABILITY of certain events occurring, or do you wait to until you know what the M’s are actually going to do?
I say the latter. Why rank the Ms 6th with the assumption that Jack Z will make smart trades, find gold in the draft, and sign free agents that boom rather than bust?
crappy way to end your pointless articles about this…”well here’s what you guys want, but you’re only getting it because you all want it”. you don’t come out of this looking good, not after writing FOUR longwinded, contradictory articles before coming to this conclusion.
regardless of how we feel about the ranking or series in general, i think it’s cool that dave came on to defend himself and his (admittedly, i think) incorrect view of the M’s organization. in 2 or 3 years if the M’s are an elite franchise i fully expect a big fat razzberry/strawberry (whatever it’s called) from Dave to the fangraphs reading public. although i doubt the M’s will be in that position.
Thanks Dave for your comments in this series. I really disagreed with your assessment when it was originally presented. I don’t agree with all of your rebuttals. I do appreciate you being stand up and taking the criticism / questions and explaining your position.
Reasonable people can disagree. Smart people can get some things wrong. Debate and dissent are always healthy and good.
you’ve also conveniently ‘apologized’ for the wrong thing – people aren’t mad/laughing at you because you messed up a prediction, but because you can’t be trusted to objectively analyze one major league baseball team. for a full-time employee, that’s sort of a big deal.
I understand that there’s a large contingency of people who believe that we should not presume intelligence until success has been displayed on the field, and that we should infer that an organization is well run once the fruits of their labor of have been reaped, and those are the people who are going to hate this ranking. I simply have a philosophical disagreement with you on how we should evaluate our expectations for the future. Just as we can separate Jason Heyward from a normal outfield prospect despite the fact that he has accomplished nothing at the big league level, I believe we can also evaluate an organization’s ability to put a winning team on the field before they do so.
This was a central aspect to the argument made in the original ranking. What would have been potentially interesting was a dispassionate explanation for the methodology that lead to this extraordinary statement.
Just as we can separate Jason Heyward… we can evaluate an organization’s ability to put a winning team on the field before they do so. Ok how did the remarkable separation occur?
When you think about it, that really is an extraordinary statement that has a real hint of utopianism to it.
What kind of prescience would be required to make that statement?
Seriously, with Heyward we had a few seasons of great performance in the minors and amazing scouting reports. With the M’s front office we had a few good moves and that was it. Not really comparable in anyway.
Not that it was the greatest analogy, but the Mariners front office guys didn’t just appear one day. They had an extensive background in baseball.
It’s somewhat comparable to a minor league track record.
Clearly, but that’s still an incredibly small sample size of moves where you can’t even be entirely sure what role they played in the decision making. I’d be more inclined to compare it to a scouting report than a minor league track record.
That’s a somewhat fair point, but Zduriencik/McNamara/Blengino have been around the game for a long time, so while the positions are new, we can somewhat “project” them like we’d do with prospects.
Obviously there are quibbles about how accurately we can do this, but the information is there to make at least an educated guess.
But how confident can you be in such a projection given less data than you have for more established Front Offices? Shouldn’t a theoretical great projection be regressed due to lack of data?
The same kind that made Dave call Tampa Bay one of the best-run organizations in baseball back in 2007 when they were en route to earning yet another #1 pick.
It is entirely possible to evaluate an organization’s moves within context to come up with an idea of how good you think the FO is. Making a run at every high-priced FA on the market like Bavasi used to do would have been a colossal mistake. Instead, Zduriencik made a few moves geared towards giving the team a shot at contention without sacrificing the future. I think it was a pretty good play, even though it hasn’t worked well in terms of the 2010 standings.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_Law
“In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue.”
This is by far my favorite comment in this string.
I think the biggest single issue was the overrating of the FO, and the underrating of other FOs that don’t have sabr street cred. I’m thinking specifically of the Dodgers in the 2nd case, who have indeed had a poor season, but still seem to be headed in a better direction overall than the Mariners due to overall talent and resources.
You really think so? With Frank McCourt’s divorce problems, a FO willing to sacrifice good talent to acquire mediocre players, and a suddenly competitive NL West?
Yes, they have some good young talent that will undoubtedly keep them in the thick of things for a few years. The question is, though, will the organization be healthy enough to expand upon that or just flounder in mediocrity.
You’re right, the divorce is problematic in the short term but I assume the McCourt divorce will be resolved before the beginning of next season. In any case, the Dodgers have huge built in market/revenue advantages, huge untapped stadium resources and it’s well known that they have a huge TV windfall coming with the current TV deal expires in 2013. The Dodgers have traded away a lot of young players but the vast majority of those traded have not developed – Carlos Santana is a huge exception but that Brandon Morrow trade is looking pretty bad now too. The Mariners aren’t immune to those kind of errors.
>>the divorce is problematic in the short term>>
This is a hell of an assumption. I’m no legal expert, but divorces have been known to financially cripple or at least cause harm to business owners. We really don’t have any way of predicting what kind of damage, if any at all, the final ruling on the divorce will have for the Dodger’s organization until it happens.
I don’t want to drag this discussion out too hard because I don’t know enough about the Dodgers to make informed opinions. All I am saying is that, for now, their future organizational health at least from a resource standpoint should be in doubt. The Mariners, currently, do not have any ownership struggles nor financial windfalls.
No, the biggest issue is clearly the overrating of the current talent. Which everyone did. This whole exercise of demanding an apology because Dave is wrong is pathetic, frankly. Everyone was wrong.
Because what, exactly, has the FO done since the ranking to prove that they’re not as good as Dave thinks? Several of their moves have not panned out, but the true judgment is to see if it was a wise move given what we knew at the time. And nobody at the time of the ranking was arguing that the Figgins and Bradley moves were dumb.
Many people doubted the current talent level. You really do need to go back and read the original commentary.
No, people doubted if a smart management with money could take a .500 team to a level of success. Or, more like, they confused the ranking with a 2010 prediction list and were outraged that a .500 projected team would be ranked ahead of the World Series champion!! Nobody based their criticism of Dave’s ranking on the fact that he was overestimating the team’s current talent level, unless it was to criticize him for an assumption that he wasn’t making (i.e. that the team was anything better than a .500 team on average).
You don’t think the front office deserves some of the blame for how the Griffey/Wakamatsu situation played out?
Rob,
>>Many people doubted the current talent level.>>
To this degree? Don’t even lie.
Gdwag
>>You don’t think the front office deserves some of the blame for how the Griffey/Wakamatsu situation played out?>>
Probably. If not for how it resolved then certainly for why it was there in the first place. The team should never have re-signed Griffey for 2010. That is certainly something to knock the FO on. It either screams of higher FO meddling (IE: Chuck Armstrong) which is never good for any FO or it means that Jack Z had a severe brain cramp on the ability of Griffey to play baseball. Personally, I lean towards high end meddling, but it doesn’t really matter. It’s still a FO problem one way or the other.
So you are, at least, partially right. But this should be something for the discussion of next season’s rankings as it had no relevance on this season’s.
Typical Idiot Fan
>>Probably. If not for how it resolved then certainly for why it was there in the first place. The team should never have re-signed Griffey for 2010. That is certainly something to knock the FO on. It either screams of higher FO meddling (IE: Chuck Armstrong) which is never good for any FO or it means that Jack Z had a severe brain cramp on the ability of Griffey to play baseball. Personally, I lean towards high end meddling, but it doesn’t really matter. It’s still a FO problem one way or the other.
So you are, at least, partially right. But this should be something for the discussion of next season’s rankings as it had no relevance on this season’s.<<
It still is relevant to last year's rankings. The Mariners last season proved that they weren't going to go anywhere without any offensive upgrades. So what do the Mariners do in the offseason? They trade for Cliff Lee, which would help them maintain last season's run prevention (as flukey as it was, Washburn was huge for them), replace Beltre with Figgins, lose Branyan, , trade for a Milton Bradley with huge question marks and coming off a .775 OPS season, and continue to rely on these guys to improve the offense:
Jose Lopez
Casey Kotchman
Rob Johnson
Jack Wilson
Mike Sweeney
Ken Griffey Jr.
Am I missing something here? That's a recipe to continue treading water at best and basically ignores the fact that the 2009 Mariners were not as good as their record showed. And sure, the Mariners didn't do much in the offseason to hurt their future, but they did very, very little to help it outside of buying somewhat low on Lee in hopes of getting a haul in the future.
Dave,
Why throughout this entire process have you yet to actually look at the players on the team that you felt helped the Mariners earn the #6 org ranking? You’ve mentioned a few, but you just completely ignored the “young talent” that the Mariners supposedly had and the 5 or 6 teams that you should have ranked ahead of the Mariners.
And now you’re saying that no one here wants to discuss the sausage making process? That’s what most of us have tried doing, but you’re the one who has ignored the many good questions I’ve seen in the comments section. Now you’re taking your ball and going home after 4 of these posts and you’ve yet to actually have a real discussion about the ranking.
You missed it – they’ll be more transparent next year
The most common complaint is a lack of understanding of the process which yielded #6 as opposed to #10 or #15 or #3? Then combine this with Dave’s theoretical interest in having a sincere discussion on the process and the outcome:
** We’ll be more transparent next year**
If Dave were interested in having a discussion, he would have taken what even he acknowledges as the most common issue raised and actually go into detail on it.. Instead he puts up a bunch of points that he can refute, sidesteps the most common issue and wraps things up with a broad characterization that those who disagree with him are generally just looking for a pound of flesh (I’ll have to be honest I did not see the victim card coming out at the end, that was well played)
And to conclude this sincere attempt at discussion with a smartass, sarcastic “apology” to the people who are out to get him and not interested in having a discussion was a rather fitting end.
How about something on your holier-than-thou writing?
And are you finally ready to admit you were far out of line with regards to JJ Hardy?
Yeah, sure, let’s turn this into a Roast. Let every crank come out of the woodwork and get their shots in. That’s productive.
You’re starting to sound like Dave’s sock puppet. Or his mom.
I thought that was me? I get so confused!
>>You’re starting to sound like Dave’s sock puppet. Or his mom.>>
Does that bother you? Do you think it’s wrong that someone would willingly come to the defense of another human being who is being shamelessly attacked from all angles by irrational morons?
Hell, if you think this is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Sadly no, he’s just another Mariners fan that seems to think anyone who disagrees with DC is an irrational moron that’s shamelessly attacking him.
There are only a handful of people in this thread that sound irrational, and you’re one of them! And yes, it would bother me if Dave set up a dummy account in order to stealth defend himself.
>>Sadly no, he’s just another Mariners fan that seems to think anyone who disagrees with DC is an irrational moron that’s shamelessly attacking him.>>
Says the dumbshit who didn’t even realize his questions were answered already.
>>There are only a handful of people in this thread that sound irrational, and you’re one of them!>>
Neener-neener! No you are!
>>And yes, it would bother me if Dave set up a dummy account in order to stealth defend himself.>>
You have to be pulling my junk if you think I’m Dave Cameron on an alternative name.
TIF has been posting in the Mariners blogosphere for years.
Not that you seem to actually care about being rational, but it’d be an incredibly elaborate sock-puppeting that dates back to before Dave even wrote for Fangraphs. Maybe even before Fangraphs existed, I don’t remember for sure.
Do you realize what a loser you sound like right now? You’re personally insulting people over the internet because they disagree with someone else’s opinion. You’re just as bad as the people you’re bashing for insulting Dave.
I’m the master, Jeff. The puppet-fucking-master.
>>Do you realize what a loser you sound like right now?>>
70% how you look,
20% how you sound,
10% what you say.
Typical human behavior. Ignore the message, attack the messenger because he’s a meanie-head.
>>You’re personally insulting people over the internet because they disagree with someone else’s opinion. You’re just as bad as the people you’re bashing for insulting Dave.>>
I never once claimed to be taking any kind of moral high ground. Quite the opposite, I’m giving Dave’s attackers, based on their complete lack of anything resembling logic, rationality, or even understanding of what the organizational rankings were all about, all the respect they deserve.
So, please, cry about it more. It might make a difference.
Whatever, Dave!
Right because I thought Dave should have spent more time going into where he went wrong I was attacking him and thus deserved the personal insults you’re hurling at me…cool
>>Right because I thought Dave should have spent more time going into where he went wrong I was attacking him and thus deserved the personal insults you’re hurling at me…cool>>
Playing the victim makes me want to barf.
Hey idiot, can you please recap how many times you have spewed name calling in this thread? How many is it if you count the fact that you call yourself an idiot whenever you post? Also, off the record, would you care to explain how calling names is not attacking the messenger rather than the message as you so vehemently oppose?
If you can answer all of these questions you could be our grand prize winner on………..Not Being a Hypocrite!
Now Cameron can get back to what he does best and loves the most. Mariner ball washing.
Dave, I’ve read through a lot of these comments, saw some very good/legitimate points and some not-so-quality posts that you mentioned at the end of the post. I’m looking forward to seeing a more transparent discussion of the criteria behind the rankings next year.
So – if next season the Mariners blast through preseason predictions and win the WS, are we going to see a slew of commenters apologizing for underestimating the Mariners acumen and retracting their criticisms? Or will most of us recognize that one years results is really too small to use to infer organizational effectiveness.
FTR – I am a Mariners fan and Jack Z. fan who believed that the #6 was a significant overrating. I didn’t feel that they should have been ranked that highly until the management team actually showed accomplishments, and that one year of success was too small a sample size for that purpose. I also consider this year also to short to also establish anything of itself. The Mariners might very well be the #6 organization in baseball in actuality, but I believe we need more hard evidence of that. About this time next year I believe that useful inferences can be drawn, as by then we should have a reasonable base of information on player signing, drafting, development and MLB roster management activities.
Until we can get a handle on those elements I don’t see how any team can be ranked higher than about 10th, no matter how promising the rhetoric and no matter how strong the preliminary returns.
I look forward to the series next year if it is indeed more rooted in objective data. IMO, Fangraphs should almost never delve into the subjective, as that would kind of be the opposite of sabermetrics (prospect posts are the obvious exception).
I don’t understand this reasoning. Why does Fangraphs have to fit this niche and never stray outside of it? It limits the possibilities for interesting content.
Well first off I hate opinion writing – which is exactly why I got into sabermetrics. The whole point is to use objective evidence to make opinions, not subjectivity which is rampant in this case of the organizational rankings and many other articles on this site. Like it or not, FanGraphs has become the face of sabermetrics to the outside world, but I would say 80% of the articles on this site are just your typical baseball commentary using sabermetric lingo (xFIP instead of ERA, wOBA instead of BA, etc.) So if FanGraphs wants to be seen as a sabermetric site, they should make an effort to be more objective and research oriented. If not, than they should make it clear that the articles are opinion and not much more.
I think you’re being really dismissive of the quality of the work here.
This is one series of articles (granted, it’s a high-profile one) and extending its subjectivity to say “80% of the articles on this site are just your typical baseball commentary” isn’t fair to the quality writers here at all.
I don’t know what Fangraphs is aiming to be in the overall scheme of things; but plenty of quality analysis goes on here, and one might be led to question your motives for being so dismissive towards Fangraphs while linking to the site you write for (which I in the main hold in a lot of respect).
Perhaps that was a bit harsh. I am a big fan of many of the writers here, and have written with many of them on other websites, so I don’t have an agenda here. I would also appreciate you not calling my motives into question.
Perhaps 80% is a bit high, but I’ll stand by my statement that their is a lot more subjective analysis on this website than you’d expect from one with such a strong sabermetric feel. Dave’s lists, which are at least 80 articles, are certainly an example of that, but many of the trade analyses, commentaries and other things are riddled with commentary and truisms in lieu of solid evidence. All websites feature such things, but unless I’m biased, I’ve noticed a lot more of that stuff here.
You know, I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of how I feel about FanGraphs as a whole. I believe that right people have already been made aware of that.
The main thing is that this series is the type of thing that I don’t think belongs on FanGraphs, because it’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion given the lack of clearly defined guidelines and grading measures. Like I said, I look forward to the series next year being a lot more quantitative.
I’ll point out that I didn’t call your motives into question; I simply said that you’re opening yourself up to it due to your affiliation with another site and your theories on how to “fix” Fangraphs (presumably by making it more like the site you write for).
In any case, that wasn’t the main point of the discussion, and if it raised your dander I apologize.
Something you should know as an analyst, though; you can only analyze what already HAS happened. Anything you’re projecting is by nature subjective. Some people are making their guesses from better information than others, but nobody knows for sure what is going to happen.
In the main, I trust the Fangraphs writers to make reasonable projections based on the information available to them. I don’t see any reason to restrict smart baseball guys to only writing about what is provable and concrete.
That might be what you personally prefer, but I think you’d find yourself in the minority among regular readers of this site, and I think your definition of sabermetrics is a very narrow and not particularly interesting one.
Actually, THT is very much a non-sabermetric website in some ways. There are as many historical meanderings/humor pieces/commentary as there are research pieces. I think that’s ok because THT isn’t necessarily seen as a sabermetrics site, at least not as much as FanGraphs is. This is besides the point though.
Agreed.
Disagree. ZIPS or CHONE is not subjective in the slightest. Sure, there are assumptions being made in any system, but those are necessary, and the finished product is calculated objectively using the framework of the system.
Actually, I can see how criticizing FanGraphs while linking to another website could be seen poorly, so I’ll refrain from doing that in the future.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t think it was something you were doing intentionally, I just thought I should point out how it might make people go “hmmmm”.
You’re telling me we can objectively rank front offices, on the field talent, minor league talent, resources, etc? I don’t think we can. At least not completely. There’s always going to be some form of subjectivity, whether it be preference to one of the projection systems (ZIPS over CHONE, etc) or opinions on minor leaguers, scouting reports, and how well they’ll develop.
I think it’s a fool’s errand. But, it’s worth a try. If for nothing more than to shut some people up.
I agree that their can be room for subjectivity, but IMO, it should fit inside a framework.
You can subjectively rank a teams current talent, future talent and front office, but you should at least find a consistent way to combine the three. And with the amount of subjectivity involved in each subset of the ranking, the less weight it should be have.
That’s just me though. I personally find a lot more value in creating an objective value system, even if requires making some assumptions, rather than simply go on gut (which is essentially what this series appears to be).
I think a sequence like this would have been a great opportunity to clearly define the objective, formula, and meaning for the system right off the bat. It’s still clear that too many people don’t understand what these rankings represent.
1) “Organizational RANKING” has the condition of something concrete. I wonder if that’s what people are having a hard time dealing with. I feel like this system speaks more to the “comparison and measurement of organizational state”, which speaks more to the past, present, and future window of what these subjective measurements try to get a feel for.
2) What I am missing most from the “Organizational Rankings” feature, is the graphing feature of Fangraph reading. In 2009 there were at least clear-cut sections such as “Ownership”, and a grading system per category. I felt like the 2010 articles lost a lot of that definition. While I enjoy pure article formats, I think the variables at least need to have a clear visual presentation. Just as the 20-80 scouting grade systems, there’s really no way to know for sure what we are looking at, but at least defining and committing to a measurable speculation before trying to rank these teams 1-30, makes for clearer interpretation. I understand it is never desirable to attempt measuring the unmeasurable, but in addition to the article, categories, subcategories, plusses, minuses, numbers, letters, arrows, any little bit would help.
3) Having reference to past rankings helps provide context to this window too. If these rankings provide to a window of speculation, then why are these articles sort of glancing over their past ranking trends. They contribute to this window system just as much. Also, how the window itself is weighted… Heavy on end? Or balanced throughout? In other words, when you commit to giving Seattle a #6, are you saying that the currency of the window is worth 6? Or the destination of the path is worth 6?
4) What I got out of the #6org ranking was, that fangraphs saw the Mariners as currently having the ingredients and/or ability to sustain a “playoff-type prosperous” phase in relation to the rest of the league. The Rays would be a perfect example of a team that could fall off a cliff 5 years from now (when their draft resources dry up, and all of these guys start having to be paid). Within a ranking system like this, it wouldn’t be out of the question to see them show up within the #10-15 range 4 years from now even if they are still World Series contenders… Maybe a shotty example, but is this kind of what you’re saying?
Suggestion for quantifiable measurement:
Something like ranking each team by total playoff probability over the next 5 years or whatever number you choose. For a example, a team with a 50% playoff probability every year for 5 years would be 250% while a team with a 20%, 20%, 70%, 80%, 80%, would score a 270% and be considered the better team. If you consider immediate years more important, then you can put weight on each year. This also covers the divisional aspect since a Jays team that averages 85 wins a season, for example, would rank lower than a Reds team that averages 85 wins a season due to strength of division.
That’s the criteria I’ve had in my head when I first saw the organizational rankings.
Estimating a team’s playoff odds even two years in advance is basically impossible.
Well isn’t that what we’re doing with the “future talent” section?
God these comments are a beating. The cognitive dissonance from the #6org apologists is mind blowing.
Don’t think an apology was necessary, Mr. Cameron (let alone in four parts), but a discussion about whether defense can win championships in baseball is always awesome. Points of discussion are, for me, more about enlightenment than about who’s right or wrong and #6org was just a little poking of fun.
someone buy Mr. Cameron a “haters gonna hate” shirt
Should have been his entire post.
“The Great #6org Discussion
HatersGonnaHate.jpg”
Would have been more respectable. I would have enjoyed it, even if I did laugh at the ranking when it was posted.
This #6org discussion series was a great exercise and I applauded Dave for it — until the ending of this installment. Sheesh.
The name rings true.
Hah! Now I have my own personal troll. Let me start up a twitter so you can constantly spam “#The Name Rings True”.
Dave, I honestly do not understand what you are apologizing for. We come here to read your opinions and I think you pretty clearly showed that the ranking was based on some sound thought and reasoning and wasn’t just a bais pick. Its easy for the idiots to combine an awful Mariners season and a lack of understanding what these rankings are and come out with ‘bias.’ But that doesn’t mean you need to appease them. Who’s the expert thats writing on Fangrapgs? YOU, not them.
No, we do not have to agree with you with that ranking. But we aren’t apologizing for OUR opinions, and no one has a website built around all of us spouting off our mouths. The readers come here for the Fangraph writers opinions and its a shame that people couldn’t accept them and move on. You guys aren’t always right, nobody is, but you are generally insightful and if Dave Cameron thinks the Mariners are the #6 organization overall that means something to me, whether I agree or not.
No one on this site is forcing the readers to agree, its too bad that so many folks thought you needed to admit being wrong when you really weren’t wrong about anything – you made a call based on your knowledge, which is what we all come here for.
He isn’t apologizing. He’s just being petulant that he was called out repeatedly for misrepresenting what this “discussion” was all about.
My question is when the hell is Fangraphs going to hire a community manager already. Most of this #6org troll crap could have been minimized using a open, transparent, firm set of community rules and the judicious use of the banhammer.
I’m not going to read all these comments but as a long-time ussmariner reader I can’t figure out how someone could possibly consider Dave a fanboy or overly optimistic. This is the guy who has skewered bad moves and wrong belief systems within the mariners organization for longer than some of thse commentors have probbaly had internet access. I find this hillarious because there is a large contingent of Seattle fans who constantly rip on him for being a debbie downer w/r/t to Seattle’s postseason chances. Seems like a damned if you damned if you don’t situation Dave finds himself in.
I have lost count of the comments I’ve moderated on USSM over the years to the effect of “Dave, why do you hate the Mariners so much?”
It’s not really something I’d use to try to change anyone’s mind here since I’m not sure that’s possible, but it does give me an extra chuckle every time someone accuses him of blind Mariners fanboyism.
I’m not making a judgment on the Mariners or a prediction for their success or even a statement about probabilities in MLB. But I do have one prediction: if the Mariners win the World Series in the next 2-3 years, I, and many others, will find it hard not to laugh at the #6org! crowd. For me at least, it won’t be a spiteful laugh, I will just find it all to be quite humorous.
Actually, it’s kind of like the laugh when Jim Thome hits a walk-off homer for the Twins over the White Sox, except that one really stings.
What frustrates me most about this series is that I don’t feel that Dave responded much to what went wrong in the in making the original rankings, as he did defend his original rankings. In the previous piece, he cherry picked Bradley and Figgin’s statistics from the years that most suited his original analysis (meanwhile forgoing to include that Bradley’s most recent season and Figgin’s from merely a year prior were terrible).
Even as a guy that’s not a big fan of Cameron, I am a little surprised that he was dead set on defending his original rankings instead of looking to see what went wrong in order to improve future analysis. Whether I like him or not, this is what we’ve come to expect from Dave, and I’m severely disappointed.
I’m really thinking that the only thing that would satisfy some people here would be a public stoning.
He’s said that they’ll be approaching the series differently next year, and I’m sure some of the more sensible feedback will be part of that. He’s also said that he was wrong and shouldn’t have ranked the Mariners as highly as he did.
I’m not sure what else he is supposed to do at this point.
This whole thing has gotten out of control, but please spare me this:
“He’s also said that he was wrong and shouldn’t have ranked the Mariners as highly as he did.”
Really? I mean, really?
Chris’s comment seems totally reasonable to me, especially this part:
“What frustrates me most about this series is that I don’t feel that Dave responded much to what went wrong in the in making the original rankings, as he did defend his original rankings.”
This is spot on. Rather than re-evaluating “the process”, Dave basically reinforced that the process needs no tweaking, the Mariners just had some bad luck. Re-affirmed “the process”, as it were.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/401925/actual_process_chart.png
Hopefully this is my last #6org comment.
If you choose to ignore what Dave actually said in favor of your own interpretations of his motives, then I can’t help you.
One additional note:
The overall tone of the articles was “so what, I was wrong, but it was just a meaningless article, no harm done.”
When, in fact, we’re used to Dave Cameron articles that are very much to the point and have a lot to say. He’s essentially backtracking to say that he didn’t mean what he said, but that he’s not going to say that.
Huh?
Except that they are meaningless articles, and the people who got agitated over them are blithering idiots. Unless you know something I don’t about Dave Cameron’s writing somehow meaning something to how the universe continues to go about it’s daily business.
Aren’t you all riled up over these articles? Or worse, you must be thrown off you base by meaningless comments in a thread for a meaningless article series. I guess you are right though, anyone who displays annoyance or agitation over anything other than universe altering subjects must be a blithering idiot.
You sir are and idiot.
Dear lord TIF, you have to be (though Jeff Nye is right there) the biggest bore on the internet. You have the innate ability to suspend realization of the walking contradiction that you are. Do us all a favor and piss off. And Mr. Nye, quit saying we when talking analysis, you do nothing but lay your heavy hands all over every thing that Cameron writes. You are not on the team, towel boy more closely describes your role.
Dave it was 1 mistake out of 30 teams (maybe 2 if you include Milwaukee) so thats damn good. Your the most talented writer here and your Trade Value Series is the best thing about this site.
Keep up the good work…
Dave, if you’re still watching this thread:
You’ve said here and elsewhere that this was a collaborative effort by Fangraphs authors, not something you did solely on your own.
Can you speak to that a bit? Who else had input into the series, and what proportion of that feedback weighed into the final decision of who was ranked where?
Dave,
I’d like you to respond to this too, it might be the only intelligent thing Jeff Nye has brought up in this whole thread.
I’d also be more interested in what period you subjectively look at when finalizing these rankings. Is it the nex 2 years? next 3 years? How much weight do you put on something 3 years out?
Do Mariners fans realize how much they are making non M’s fans loath their fanbase? Seriously you guys come across very insulting. I used to call the M’s my AL team, but no more…
That’s okay, fans of other teams exhibiting such glee over the Mariners’ dismal season has gone a long way towards making the feeling mutual.
In order:
We don’t care.
Cry me a river.
You wont be missed.
If you really are going to lump the behavior of a handful of people unto the entirety of the fanbase, then you’re too fucking stupid to be worth discussing anything with.
and there you go. Fine, I won’t hate on the whole fanbase, just you. You guys are despicable punks.
By the way it’s not so much that I think the rest of the fanbase acts as you do. It’s that I can’t stand the thought of rooting for the same team as you. You are not the stupidest fan I know, you are aware of Fangraphs after all, but you may be the hardest to like.
Cry me a river right? Cause the only important thing in life is being right and winning.
Chair, having lived in Seattle since 2001 I’ve come to expect nothing less from Mariner fans.
Their combined ignorance and arrogance, including Dave Cameron, is maddening. I still recall the time a pocket protector wearing Mariner fan threw back a Cal Ripken homer and was cheered for it. That was in Cal’s final season.
Did some Mariner ball washer actually write that Griffey’s demise was unforeseeable.
For the love of Jesus Montero, man! Griffey’s like a million years old and was coming off yet another surgery. Did you actually expect the fat ass to improve?
What did I miss?
Being a long-time ussmariner reader, it’s clear that Dave doesn’t have an inherent bias towards his hometown team. If that was true he wouldn’t have wrote post after post about how horrible Bill Bavasi was as the GM, like the posters above me said, he was known as a pessimist. Also, he wouldn’t have criticized the Morrow trade and the re-signing of Griffey (among other things).
But it’s also true that he knows more about the Mariners than any other team, and he’s simply not going to be able to follow all teams equally. Being that close may have had an impact on his judgment, but he didn’t rank them higher because they were the Mariners. Given the criteria he was using (basically, management + money = quality of organization) and given that JZ has run the organization similarly to what Dave considers ideal, it’s not surprising they received a high ranking. Now, it’s not inconceivable that if he was equally as close to other organizations he may rank things differently, but he didn’t praise the Cliff Lee trade or the Gutierrez trade because he’s a Mariners fan.
And acting like this season is a refutation is pretty silly. If for whatever reason all the Mariners with question marks had had their equivalent seasons to their best (or a 2001 Bret Boone breakout season) would you be ranting about #6org? Of course not.
I wouldn’t have ranked them that high if I was making a criteria to rank organizational health. I would’ve placed more emphasis on prospects and slightly less on the front office. I also wouldn’t rank the Mariners front office quite as high as Dave did when he made the rankings, but he probably wouldn’t either after keeping Sweeney on the roster, and the lack of making the moves (like cutting Griffey) that they needed to early in the season.
I think people have more legitimate points when they question the underlying criteria that he was using, not the way in which he was applying it.
Well said. Thank you for that thoughtful comment.
I think the problem is when the article was written and his bias against the previous system lead to a overwhelming faith in Z and staff. The grass is greener on the other side of the fence…
Lets remember the context and time frame in which this article was written. By doing that it can easily shed light on why there could and most likely was built in bias, knowingly or not, in the article.
Bias happens all the time and changes over time from one extreme to the other. By using a past regime of the Mariners as an example of his lack of bias dismisses the fact that biases and perceptions change over time.
For a period of time DC’s perception of Z was influenced by his distaste for the previous Mainer FO. This in itself will provide built in bias, much less the other factors involved.
Ways in which this discussion is absurd:
– The speed with which people accuse others of bias. I’m pretty sure Dave is more interested than anyone in being unbiased…for the sake of his future employment, reputation, and desire to know The Truth, just off the top of my head. It’s a completely lazy accusation that makes no sense with the slightest amount of scrutiny.
– The tendency for people to ignore the facts. You can make a damn good case that the Mariners are one of the healthiest organizations in baseball. They were 10th in payroll in 2009 and have a (far?) superior GM than 6 of the 9 organizations above them. They’re also in a division that is not crushingly competitive, like the AL East. Payroll and management quality is going to drive organizational health in the long-term. Please, attack this point before going any further with your hysteria.
– The tendency for people to overreact to new information. Come on, guys. Haven’t most of us followed baseball enough to know it’s ridiculous to put too much credence in small sample sizes? One losing season does not a losing organization make.
#1 The division may not be crushingly competitive like the AL east, but the Rangers are widely considered superior to the M’s, and over the next 5 years it is hard to see the M’s finishing ahead of them. The M’s also still play in the same league as the AL east’s big three, so even if they make the playoffs, their road to a championship is harder, therefore they should be penalized.
#2 You really set yourself up for scrutiny when you questioned the validity of using a one season sample size to judge an organization. Isn’t that what all the Mariner supporters have done in their evaluations of Jack Z? All of the positive expectations and evaluations have been based off of the 09 season and its relative pre and off seasons. The fact that you have neglected this point is maddening, for it has been brought up countless times over many moths and hardly ever addressed by the Mariner faithful.
You sir are the one over reacting to new info.
Let’s see:
The tendency for people to ignore the facts.
Let’s separate facts from opinions, then.
You can make a damn good case that the Mariners are one of the healthiest organizations in baseball.
Opinion.
They were 10th in payroll in 2009
Fact.
and have a (far?) superior GM than 6 of the 9 organizations above them.
Opinion. If this is a fact, then I would like to see some objective criteria based evidence in support of it.
They’re also in a division that is not crushingly competitive, like the AL East.
Fact, but ignores the facts that Rangers have tremendous amount of talent, and Angels have a great deal of resources, and proven track record of success over the last decade. Athletics have a great management in place, continuity of regime, and some intriguing talent.
Payroll and management quality is going to drive organizational health in the long-term.
Opinion. Not fact. If this is an established hypothesis, then please offer proof. Also define long-term. Management quality does not remain static over long term.
Please, attack this point before going any further with your hysteria.
The onus is on you to provide support for your assertions, not the other way round.
I don’t necessarily think it’s reactionary to say that some of this resulted from homerism. And I don’t necessarily blame Dave for his homerism. People treat it like a dirty word, but I think it’s a matter of definition. They take it to mean “ha ha my team is better than yours” or, “I want them to win so badly that I unconsciously (or consciously) overrated their abilities/chances.
On the other hand, I think it’s safe to say most of us follow our own teams more closely than we do other teams, even well-informed analysts like Dave. I don’t think this really applies to Present Talent, but more so the last two categories. We know the farm system inside and out, and a guy who even most informed fans of other teams have never thought twice about is to us not a stud, but a legit prospect.
And I think the same can apply in terms of FO/management. There’s a belief that sometimes because we’re looking at a team so closely we see warts that other people don’t see. This is why even Red Sox and Yankee fans could give you a laundry list of issues with their teams (“We don’t have good 7th inning guy!”), because if you don’t take a step back a wart can look like something much worse than it really is. And I think this can work both ways. Maybe some of the criteria Dave used in giving the Mariners’ FO such a high rating was, while not inaccurate, not necessarily as salient as he treated it to be.
But it’s hard to “step back”, I’m sure even for an analyst. You can’t unlearn things you already know, but maybe Dave could have put things in better perspective. “Homerism” is kind of insulting, maybe we could just call it, “proximity to the item in question.”
Whether or not there was bias involved is one question. Another is whether Cameron should have taken less of a lead role in the Mariners’ ranking since the appearance of bias can be as damaging as bias itself in a scientific endeavor. I wouldn’t want the father of a scientist peer reviewing his son’s work or a Judge sentencing her husband, for example. If someone else’s name had been on the post, the 6org stuff wouldn’t have exploded in the same way.
“The Lee for Smoak trade was pretty good, so I hear. ”
Choosing Smoak over Montero is going to look really dumb in 5 years. By the way, if the Mariners still haven’t found much success in 5 years, will people still defend the ranking mercilessly? I’m guessing over that length of time you can come up with all new and more clever excuses.
Maybe, maybe not. I would have preferred Montero to Smoak myself, but Lueke and Beavan are no slouches. It was a good return, and there is some question about what exactly happened with the Yankees deal.
How do you defend the fact that on a supposedly competitive team, Griffey was chosen to DH over dozens and dozens of potentially far superior options for not one but two seasons? It doesn’t matter how this came to be, what matters is the health of the M’s organization was not great enough to prevent it. We knew Griffey was signed at the time of the Ranking (right?) why was this not a negative consideration when evaluating the team and FO?
By the way, before you jump all over “t doesn’t matter how this came to be” like a rabid dog, my point is that even if it was not a decision made by the front office but was rather from up top, it is still a organizational negative which we should be evaluating.
I have no idea why you decided to suddenly bring up Griffey, but to be clear:
I hated the Griffey re-signing; but like it or not, he’s a Seattle icon, and there was probably significant organizational pressure to bring him back. People in Seattle go way too far with the “Armstrong/Lincoln are the root of all evil” bit, but I would be very surprised if they didn’t have a significant hand in Griffey coming back for 2010. Jack’s hands may have been somewhat tied.
Even if not, he wasn’t actually that bad in 2009; he managed a .323 wOBA which isn’t fantastic from a no-defense guy but a good shade better than the .214 he managed before he retired in 2010. I’m not sure anyone saw that fast and severe of a decline coming.
The problem with Griffey in 2010 was much more about how his playing time was managed, and then how his exit was managed (which I honestly put mostly on Griffey himself), than the actual act of bringing him back for 2010.
Right, so the bad deals are ownership, but the good deals are Jack Z.
Seems reasonable.
If the Mariners bringing back Ken Griffey Jr. for another year says a lot about the M’s organizaiton, I wonder what it says about the Atlanta Braves organization for making a strong push for adding Griffey for their National League team (ie. a team with no DH) last year?
We could probably avoid such complications do the debate by just accepting the idea that the Griffey decision was an exception and not a rule.
No, we give the Braves credit for ultimately not bringing Griffey into their clubhouse and we ding the Ms for constructing an opening day roster with Griffey — old guy can’t play defense, Sweeny — old guy can’t play defense, E. Byrnes – guy just can’t play, the Wilson brothers — two guys that can’t hit and can’t stay healthy, Bradley — while getting rid of Silva was a benefit we’ve seen how highly combustible Bradely is and was — Rob Johnson as back up catcher – Ugggg…
To be fair, he was still a better option than Garret Anderson, who they settled for in his place.
“No, we give the Braves credit for ultimately not bringing Griffey into their clubhouse”
This is invalid argument. Just because they wanted to do something and couldn’t doesn’t mean they should get credit for not doing it.
In addition, the Braves settled for Garret Anderson who wound up being worse. Zduriencik, however, never had Anderson on his radar if had he missed out on Griffey.
You are right sir, he had E. Brynes on his radar instead. Clearly an upgrade.
Wilson Ramos is going to be a better Major League player than either Montero or Smoak. He will be a productive catcher with good defense for the next 15 years, given health. Montero doesn’t have a position, and Smoak is a first baseman who will end up being compared to Kotchman. Ramos is the player Jack Z is going to regret not getting when he could have.
One question I’ve heard raised that’s interesting is whether or not there’s a systemic bias in the projection systems that overrated the offense. Maybe there’s something we don’t understand about the home park, for example. Or maybe there’s something wrong with the coaching staff (2009 NYM “go the other way” for example). Not sure it can explain such a huge discrepancy, but it’s an interesting question.
Here is a comment from the Rangers #4 ranking the first part is quoting Dave.
“Name a position, and the Rangers almost certainly have a good player either in his prime or headed towards it. You would start your team with their double play combination before any other organization’s in the game. They have a a couple of all-star slugging outfielders that can drive in runs in bunches. They have a deep stable of starting pitchers, as they can easily pick between eight or nine guys, depending on who is healthy and throwing well. They have a kid throwing 100 in the bullpen.
Oh, and they have perhaps the best farm system in the game, led by a few more premium talents, one of whom could take the team’s first base job later this summer. The talent that the Rangers have to build around is ridiculous in both depth and ability. And they may be ready for prime time as early as this year.”
None of these things can be said about the Ms, but apparently a good FO is enough to equalize things.
Anyone care to rebut?
This is what I think a lot of us have been trying to say. Its great if you have a very good front office and ownership that’s willing to spend, but its still almost impossible to catch up with teams that have more current and future talent simply by making smart free agent signing and trades. There just aren’t enough inefficiencies to make up for the lack of good to great homegrown players.
As usual you’re spot on… but the Mariners have Jack Z at the helm.
Bwhahahahahaha
You’re absolutely right. The Rangers should have been ranked above the Mariners.
Don’t play dumb. The point is that there were many teams below the M’s that did have SOME of the things Dave describes about the Rangers, the M’s have NONE of them. I am calling into question how a team with few qualities of an ideal org like the Rangers or Rays, is placed so close in the rankings while more deserving teams were placed behind.
So should have the Phillies, Cardinals, Braves, Reds, Padres, Giants, Angles, and White Sox…that would put the Ms at 15. Seems much better now, glad we cleared that up.
@Jeff Nye,
I’m not sure I understand why Mariners fans get so defensive about this stuff. No one is saying they’re a bad organization, we’re just trying to rationally discuss why they’re not that close to being #6. One of the main reasons is that their front office has to do a ton of work to make up for the relative lack of current and future talent.
I still think the massive disconnect, is…
How Fangraphs defines the “place” of the organizational ranking. We are talking about a 5 year window. How does a #6 ranking define this 5 year window.
Also, five years ago we thought the Diamondbacks and the Dodgers had “can’t miss” heaps of young talent, and look at the direction they have been heading towards this last year. These situations don’t always change quickly, but they can. 5 years is a lot of time.
I think the biggest problem here was a lack of clarity on what the objective here is, and how one would empirically or otherwise, check the validity of these rankings.
To the people who say that #6 is too high a ranking: what is the conclusive evidence that you have been validated? The current result of the Mariners? Would Mariners success in the next few years change your opinion on whether it was too high a ranking? What is the bar that Mariners have to overcome for you to see this?
To the people who think #6 was exactly right (I can’t imagine anyone arguing that Mariners are a better org than the five above them): what would it take for you to admit to be proven wrong by subsequent events? What is the time frame over which you would make that assessment? How would you make that assessment?
To Dave: you mentioned that players are too fickle assets compared to front offices. Well, for players, you can probably quantify the individual variability in performance. Grady Sizemore’s flameout is one data point, and taken together, you can have numerical bounds of variation in player performances by an objective metric of your choice. Your opinion is that front office is less fickle, so the variability is at least lower than player variability. In saying that, you are, in fact, taking a quantitative position. How do you justify that when you cannot even quantify front office talent?
You don’t have to answer any of this today, but hopefully when you do your next rankings, you will take some effort to precisely define the question so that refutable answers to your hypothesis could be developed. Good luck.
“The roster wasn’t high variance because they were .500 at best with a lot of downside – they were high variance because they were either going to succeed or flop. They flopped.”
This is a narrative for which there is no evidence. What is the basis for thinking 90+ wins or 90+ losses are more likely results than close to a .500 record, for a team that overall looked to be an 80 win talent?
Simple statistics suggest that a team like this wins 74-86 games two thirds of the time, with 1/6 of the results worse than that and 1/6 better than that. What makes a team “high variance” where the extremes become more likely than results closer to the mean? Is this just some kind of hunch or do you actually have evidence?
I really like the first responce.
I’m looking forward to next year’s rankings and what kind of quantification is going to be added to the process. I’m sure a few of the people that contribute to this website will come up with some quite interesting.
The second responce, however, was rather typical defensive Dave. Its unfortunate that he either takes the reasonable criticisms of his ranks personally, or reads too much into the unreasonable criticisms. I’m not sure many (any?) of us wanted an appology of any kind, or even some kind of retraction. We mearly felt we had reasonable criticisms that have not been addressed, and that was the whole point of Dave starting this discussion again right? Just seems kind odd Dave would start down this path only to walk away stomping his feet after not answering most of the reasonable criticisms. I wonder what Dave’s responce would be to a situation like comprehensive exam in Ph.D. program? Judging from what I’ve seen from him on multiple account he would fail. Not because he wasn’t smart enough or knowledgable enough, but because he simply can’t handle criticism.
enough of this!! so very, very tired of all the insanely snarky ‘Im smarter than you’ crap. For F’s sake, just sit the F down and watch some baseball and try and forget about some guy on the internet who made the (gasp) awful mistake of perhaps misfiguring the front office of one particular team. And if you were wondering, yes in fact I did call Roger Clemens to verify that ‘misfigure’ is actually a word.
What’s the big deal? We’re so saturated with projections and analysis and blah blah blah that we cant see the great stories in baseball unfolding before our eyes every day. Is what some internet author prognosticated a couple of months ago about one specific team imminently more important than the fact that the purest left-handed home run hitter of our generation clubbed a game-winning home run last night? Why is that sort of stuff not blowing up the blogosphere?
What about all the other great stories this year? The Padres, with no hitting whatsoever, the Reds with all that great young talent trying to find an identity as an elite club, the Rangers after all these years maybe putting it all together and possibly marching towards the World Series, the Braves in Bobby Cox’s last year making a run at the pennant……..why all the focus on stuff that doesnt even matter
This just isn’t the right baseball site for you, and, hopefully, that is clear to you now.
Well, I do recall enjoying the original rankings and I look forward to next years ranking, and I hope that what has been learned from this excercise is to include objective standards. Based on some of the comments, some people still don’t get the original ranking. It was not a prediction of the order of finish to the 2010 season but rather a ranking of the health of each organization this year and for future years based on the major league roster, quality of prospects and the quality of the organization. The first two, based on scouting reports and statistical analysis, are highly volatile since you can only determine how a player is likely to perform and that is often quite different than the way the player actually performs. The final one though, the quality of the organization can be quantified in a number of ways and it seems Dave didn’t do this, but rather took a very subjective approach to justify his own biases. The most important factor for a healthy organization is money. What are the non-baseball revenues of the owner (amounts and sources)? What are the baseeball related revenues from various streams (tickets, corporate sponsorships, boxes, merchandising and broadcasting rights)? What was the attendance the last year? the last five years? franchise best? franchise worst? What is the trend and are there reasons for the trend? What is the market size? Then what happens with the money? What is the track record of the GM and the VP of baseball operations? What is the relationship between the GM, VP of baseball operations and ownership? What is the teams operating budget for major league salaries and scouting and development, and what evidence is there of future change, either positive or negative? These questions can all be quantified and I don’t think they were. Otherwise, how do explain Seattle at #6 and Toronto at #26?
I think ultimately, it comes down to the weightings in the ratings being reflected by the attention in the analysis.
In the Mariners’ case, if you separate the analysis in the articles from the conclusion, I think most people would be left with the impression that we’re looking at a 10-15 range team. That is, they were portrayed as a healthy, well-run organization with fair talent, but one that lacks the high-upside talent to be rated among the best organizations yet.
I think it’s perfectly appropriate to put quite a bit of weight on a team’s financial status and on the strength of their management and operational staff, but that should be reflected in the writeups. In this case, the apparent driving force behind the organization’s surprising ranking was glossed over in a couple paragraphs of general praise and justification, rather than any real analysis to show how bright the Mariners’ future is.
The typical idiot fan may be the biggest a hole in the history of the internet.
Dave, and others who are doing org ratings, I hope you are reading this.
I am sorry discussion on 6th org ended like this, and I’m sorry I read about it only when it ended, so I couldn’t post my questions earlier.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with Mariners’ ranking was very aggressive ranking of their front office based on short sample size. Yes, most people liked their moves, but it’s hard to judge front office even after 5 or more years, so ranking one as very best in baseball after only a year is too early. First question: after the events of this season, would you evaluate some deals differently? I’, thinking mostly of Bradley and Figgins. Bradley was acquired for, essentially, five millions over two seasons. Every team in baseball could have gotten him for that money, but nobody else did, and there was not much interest. I liked the deal at the time, but now I have to ask myself (and you): is there something that other GMs knew that Z and sabermetricians didn’t? Should we still consider this deal as good/great, or should new information lower its ranking?
Figgins is quite good, but not elite player who has been signed to 4-year, fairly expensive contract at the age when lot of 2b and quite a few 3b start their sharp declines, and he was moved to tougher defensive position which he hasn’t played at least semi-regularly since 2006. I could understand moving Figgins if they has resigned Beltre, but moving Figgins and Lopes always seemed like a bad idea to me. Are you taking that as a negative in your FO ranking?
There are questions about other org ratings. Why was Texas ranked 4th while in bankruptcy? Yes, they have good, young team and one of the best farm systems, but their FO is not elite, and until a week ago they had real financial problems. Did you just anticipate that ownership would be solved before the end of the season, or did you just ignore the problem?
Also, why was Washington ranked as 28th, if they have an owner who is willing to spend when needed (ther is no reason to thing Karsten wouldn’t want to keep payroll at Seattle’s level when they get players who are good enough), their FO has made some very good moves, and very few dumb ones, they do have some talent in their major league team and they have much more minor league talent than Mariners, for example. It seems to me that Washington was still being penalized for having Bowden, while Mariners were awarded for getting rid of Bavasi.
Also, the most important question that hasn’t been answered yet: what are you actually looking for for organizational rankings? The chance that team will be contender during the next 5 years? 10 years? Will be contender during the next 5 years and still leave good team afterward?
As has been said to death, it’s not so much that people disagree with your logic or methodology, or even the conclusions that you ultimately draw, it’s the degree. Yes, SEA had a high variance season ahead of them and could’ve been a deadly playoff team with 2 of the best pitchers in the league. But, the likelihood of this outcome was significant too, and it’s hard to imagine that with any rational calculation you could get as high as 6th, unless you had your Jack Z shades on, which you did.
And what a horribly disingenuous admissions of guilt. I lost some respect for you throughout this.
#6org! Looking good in ’11! Should be about the same in ’12 + ’13!
It wouldn’t be so fun to pile on if you weren’t such a disingenuous, pompous jerk.