Baseball blog where winning determines the best players. Only wins and winning can ever determine the best players and teams.
WIN METHOD
EXCELLENCE AND DESIRE ARE NOT SKILLS THEY ARE ATTITUDES
Saturday, January 31, 2009
WIN METHOD Selection 3
This will be the final points on the WIN METHOD selection process. In the future we will discuss how the WIN METHOD determines the truly best of the best players. The WIN METHOD became active in 1994 after a two year evaluation period. The great YANKEE teams of the mid nineties and hence have predominantly been selected through the WIN METHOD process. Not every single player, but 90% of them. Since the WIN METHODS active inception the YANKEE team has had the best record in baseball, and has consistently been the dominant team. Unfortunately, some players signed have not been WIN METHOD selected. Those signed to minor status (role player) do not hurt the team to a great degree. Those signed to major status (starting position player(, to this day still tend to cripple the team. Playing for ones self, individual stats and individual recognition does not bode well for team chemistry. These players tend to perform well in less meaningful situations, yet tend to fail miserably and consistently when big games are on the line. As we move into the next phase, the WIN METHOD player evaluation, you will see and be able to understand why these players are the best in the game. They WIN, and help their team WIN. The reason the game of baseball in played.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
i know a-fraud is not WIN METHOD
Great stuff. I have sung your praise on a baseball talk forum for the past year. I posted three posts and have over 200,000 views. That's right two hundred thousand. The WIN METHOD rules.
I can't wait to see the evaluations.
Even though I'm a stat guy, I actually agree with this part of it.
It is nice to know who and what really initiated the Yankee dominance since the mid 90's. I knew there was more to it than just the same old names being thrown around.
Explain how it is logical to claim that an individual ballplayer's value lies in observing the result of his team's previous performance. It appears to be an apples-to-oranges comparison.
For example, by your logic it appears that Carlos Ruiz is superior to Joe Mauer.
I'll field your query. At this stage in Carlos Ruiz career. Third year/part time catcher, it would be difficult to compare him with a full time player at the catching position. Mauer has had over 2000 ABs, while Ruiz has just over 750. Ruiz' big edge right now is having helped his team to a pennant and WS ring, albeit in a limited role. AT this point in time, a valid comparison should not be made.
Great job, johnsondc. Sound WIN METHOD logic trumps the 'got yous' of those who are unable to comprehend.
The way I understand the WIN METHOD, the primary goal of each player should be to help their team win, with individual stats being secondary.
Why would anyone demean any player who helps his team win a World Series. Isn't that the purpose of playing the game.
I'm just wondering, I'm seeing all of your views on players through this system, does it also work the same way for managers too? Because normally people don't consider managers as having high impacts of teams, but seeing as this method seems to have somewhat of a focus on chemistry among other things(as chemistry does help people to win, just ask the Tampa Bay Rays who ALMOST won it all, they were just beaten by a better put together team, meaning that you can't really call them losers), do the managers have much of an impact here?
I have no used the WIN METHOD on managers. There is no reason it shouldn't work well. The business world hires via interviews. The WIN METHOD has been tailored for baseball and I think is the greatest evaluation tool in the game. Managers are vital to team chemistry. And just because a team loses the World Series or doesn't win the pennant does not make them losers. All the playoff teams are winners to a degree. Making the playoffs is far better than the alternative. As long as the Rays stay focused and don't let their success go to their head, they will be very competitive this year. In essence, the manager and coaching staff have great value to a team, while the wrong combination can hurt a team.
The WIN METHOD being used by the YANKEES for the past 15 years and the YANKEES having consistently one of the best teams in baseball for all those years does make the WIN METHOD an unbelievable evaluation tool.
I love the idea that winning means something. Unlike the fantasy game fools who play games with useless individual statistics.
I was told about this blog. This is great.
90% Since 1994? Wow WIN METHOD goes back a long way?
So, which of these players were WIN METHOD?
Joe Ausanio
Tim McIntosh
Les Norman
Charlie Hayes
Dion James
Do you accept any counter-arguments? The comments here look awfully one-sided.
Counter arguments, points, and views are always welcome. As long as they are done with in a mannerly fashion. The name of the poster is always preferred. This is a WIN METHOD blog and most fans who come here have common sense and realize how meaningless individual stats are.
That's what I don't get WIN METHOD, when I read you, it seems like you aren't saying that individual stats are meaningless, but more like you say that when not taken into the context of the true impact on the game they are meaningless.
Because if there was an individual stat that could measure and overall contribution factoring when and what impact it had on the game, that would be such a stat that it wouldn't be overrated, just my 2 cents.
BTW, this is my first comment.
Then I'll resubmit my earlier comment (unposted), removing the sharper intro. Please do explain why the crucial core of the Yankee dynasty -- Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, Derek Jeter, and Paul O'Neill -- all entered the organization before the time you state the method was adopted.
UDNTK...All statistics tell a story. The one stat that tells the most is how much a player can help his team succeed. Statisticians have, are, and always will try to create convoluted stats to try to measure the value of what a player does at any point in time and its value in correlation to the game. Convoluted being the key. Any time any one tries to put their value on something, it is only their value how they see things. It is the same thing for my WIN METHOD. One difference, I place all the value on WINNING. The reason the game is played. THE SUCCESS of the TEAM, the reason the game is played. The WIN METHOD doesn't care what a player achieves for himself while helping his team fail.
CGMS.....The WIN METHOD was totally compensated in 1994. Partially in 1990-1993. Deeply tested 1984-1989. From the mid 60's constantly being developed and refined. When I met Mr.S. in the early 70's, I talked with him about the WIN METHOD and how I felt it could find players that could help the team win consistently. As the team floundered through the 80's, Mr.S. asked to test the WIN METHOD and find him some players. That started the ball rolling, and it hasn't stopped since. As far as any of the YANKEE GMs, scouts, or whatever...when I told Mr.S. about a WIN METHOD selection, he ordered that these players be drafted or signed. Did some not do well or succeed. Positively and without doubt. And that will occur with any process used in any organization. In the final analysis, you can only measure the success rate of all teams. The YANKEES have had more consistent success than anyone in baseball. That was the goal of the WIN METHOD.
Hey WIN METHOD. I've been down this road before with the naysayers and stat geeks. In the end, they would rather lose than win in defense of misleading, useless stat.
Ok, ok, just what I'm thinking as to a comment about not rewarding individual stat guys who consistently help their team fail, I don't think that it's as much of making their team fail as it is not helping their team to succeed. Yes a player may amass great individual stats, and not exactly help their team, but getting a hit or a homerun is never a negative thing, it's more positive in some situations that others, but there are very few if any times when it's negative.
So do you consider helping a team fail when a player consistently compiles what they do in meaningless situations? Or is it when they do things that actually hurt the team?
Because the only way I really think that any player in the MLB can hurt his team these days is by what happens with him in the clubhouse, and other places off of the field.
BTW, you met George Steinbrenner? Is he really as much of a jerk as the media has portrayed him to be?
YDNTK....Yes, you are correct, it is much more not helping their team to win, than to fail. Again you are correct, getting a hit is never a negative thing. Yes the key being WHEN the hit is made and its impact on the game. My saying 'helping a team fail' is a poor way to phrase my thought. Good catch on your part. Getting hits in meaningless situations only pads an individuals stat. It is WHEN the hit occurs that determines its value to the team. Getting a hit that helps your team win is far more valuable than two that come in meaningless situations. A player can hurt his team on the filed by not being willing or able to bunt in a certain situation, failing to move a runner, not getting a run in from 3rd with less than 2 out. Mr.S. to me and all through the WIN METHOD development has been nothing both cordial. Mr.S. want results. You give him results and try your best, he treats you well.
I love the WIN METHOD. It is logical, easy to understand and acknowledges the best players in baseball for what they achieve for their respective team.
doesn't a player hurt a team if he doesn't score a runner from third with less than 2 out? or sacrifice a runner when the condition arises? especially when the game is on the line? now i see where when means so much.
jimmy o... I think you have grasped exactly what the WIN METHOD is about.
In the second post that you kindly accepted, I clean forgot to include possibly the most important member of the Yankee dynasty: Mariano Rivera.
Rivera was first noticed by scout Carlos "Chico" Heron in 1990. The Yankees director of Latin American operations, Herb Raybourn, then liked what he saw and signed Rivera for a small bonus. His judgment was based on what he saw of Rivera's pitch movement and athleticism. It was just good old-fashioned talent scouting, beating the bushes.
This all took place in a brief period in Panama. There is no indication that any other consultations took place.
Mo was signed only after Mr.S. said it was OK. That OK was given after Mo was interviewed and passed the WIN METHOD evaluation process.
If in fact it took place, did Herb Raybourn conduct that interview? I'd be greatly surprised if this disciple of Howie Haak, the Pirates' superscout in Latin America, has ever heard of the Win Method. Those guys did things based on their eyes and knowledge of the game. It was simple; Raybourn saw a good live arm that was capable of developing.
I'd also be greatly surprised if Mr. S, even though he was prone to micromanaging, signed off on each and every low-level signing.
In addition, elsewhere "method guru" joek has claimed that it's he who conducts each interview personally, face to face. I really doubt the organization flew him down to rural Panama to conduct any interviews.
I conduct each and every interview, and have done so for over 30 years. I travel anywhere and everywhere a possible WIN METHOD player may be. I interview free agents, college, Latin American, and Asian players all over the world. I recently have started interviewing high school prospects in order to get a leg up. Not one of these players know who I am and what my goal is. To them it is just an interview for some rag. The results have been over whelming.
Hello to every single one, it's actually a nice
for me to go to see this website, it includes precious Information.
Thanks for finally writing about >"WIN METHOD Selection 3" <Liked it!
Post a Comment