With the YANKEE train rolling (choo choo) I thought this would be good time to review the WIN METHOD philosophy and set the record straight regarding the postings of a few WIN METHOD detractors, stat frauds, and fans who do not comprehend the game (business)of baseball. First and foremost, the WIN METHOD believes that the object of baseball and the goal of each team is to win games, go to the playoffs, win pennants, and win World Series. The teams who accomplish these goals the most are the best teams in baseball. The players on these teams who help their team reach these goals the most are the best players in baseball based on their each individual role on their team. Thus, it is fair to compare starting pitchers, ace,2,3,4,5, of other teams ace,2,3,4,5. Fair to compare starting everyday position players to other teams starting everyday position players. Closers to closers, utility players to utility players. It is very unfair to compare a utility player on a WS team to a starting position player on another tea. Something the WIN METHOD detractors, stat frauds, and fans who do not know baseball try to do. The WIN METHOD acknowledges and credits every player on any team who helps his team to the playoffs and beyond each season. With the players, who over their career, help their team to the most and highest successes, to be the best players in baseball during their era. Do not compare players in the 1920's to players in the 1950's to players in the 1980's to players in the 2000's.
Lets look at the career of the what seems to be the present day whipping boy, Alex Rodriquez, aka Arod, aka Afraud. Alex has helped teams to playoffs over his career, but never a pennant, and never a World Series. Alex is one of the best individual talents in MLB. But he plays for himself and not the team success. The stat frauds use to and may still do, use a convoluted misleading stat call 'replacement value'. It places a value on a player moving from one team to another and just how many more wins or less wins he would mean for his new team. Stat fraud wise, Alex has had one of the highest values in the corrupt stat fraud fantasy game world. But here are some facts from when Alex left Seattle, went to the Texas Rangers, and then went to the YANKEES. There is no question Alex is not solely responsible for these following results, but the results are so glaring and the complete opposite to the stat fraud 'replacement value' for Alex. To concrete the point here re Alex, the facts are used in before and after three year periods, to illustrate the facts are just not one year flukes. Remember fans, these are documented facts of team results with and without Alex. 1998,1999,2000, Alexs last 3 years with Seattle, the team won an average of 82 games per year. When Alex left Seattle, they immediately for the next 3 years, 2001,2002,2003, won an average of 101 games each year. That is an astounding 19 games per year more wins with no Alex on the team. Now we will look at the Texas Rangers seasons before, with, and after Alex. 1998,1999,2000 without Alex, Texas won an average of 85 games per year. In 2001,2002,2003, with Alex, the Rangers won an average of 72 games per year. The won 13 less games each year with Alex. Then in 2004,2005,2006, Texas again without Alex won an average of 83 games each year. That is up 11 games per year without Alex. Then the end all, the YANKEES in 2001,2002,2003, without Alex, won an average of 100 games per year. With Alex in 2004,2005,2006, the YANKEES won an average of 98 games per year, no question a modest drop, but as Alex stays with the YANKEES they win only 94 games in 2007, and win only 89 games in 2008, a continued drop. Is it all Aless fault, absolutely not, but he is unquestionably the single biggest factor in the failure of each team to perform at the level they performed at without him. To add another point of which I have first hand knowledge of, when Alex became a free agent and left Seattle, he could have gone to any team, played for any playoff, pennant, and WS contender, but he played for himself, he wanted to be the highest paid player in baseball, took money (which was his right and decision). He took money before a chance to win pennants and World Series.
To touch on another subject. We let anyone post their thoughts here at WIN METHOD, as long as they are civil and not vulgar. We don't mind calling an idiot an idiot. Unlike the poorly operated baseball forums, we don't need an email address, any personal facts, and we do not ban anyone for expressing their views. You can't say that about the baseball forums. You get more YANKEE information here faster than anywhere. Tex signing, CC signing, Afraud return to lineup on May 8th., etc. You the fans understand that winning is why baseball is played, and to be the best you must win. You are not the best because some half witted stat fraud wants to tell you so, because of his misleading, convoluted, individual stats. You fans have made this blog the rising star of baseball talk. I will not accept any of the many offers to commercialize this blog and waste your time with popups and advertisements. Keep posting and enjoy.
248 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 248 of 248What a rotten loss. Hope Gardner is OK. He really slammed into the wall. Hitting his back and then snapping his head into it.
Hope we wake up over the weekend. We have start putting things together.
Hoosier...what if's are for the fantasy fools. First off Gene Michael identified nothing, WIN METHOD has been the major reason the Yankees have been the best team in baseball over the past 15 years. A players career is what it is. IF Mattingly was able to perform in 96, IF he helped the team win the WS, yes he would have raised his career to a higher level. In the real world, Mattingly made the decision that he could not play in 96, and the Yankees obtained a player who helped them succeed to the highest levelm and more than once. As for Olerud and Hernandez, of course they had better careers, they each helped their team achieve the goal for what baseball is played. To respond to your final what if. If you where a manager for lets say ten years. Would you want players with the greatest individual stats of all time at each position and never win a WS....or would you rather have good meiocre to above average players at every position who helped your team win 2 or 3 WS rings? The answer defines the game of baseball and just how meaningless individual stats are.
johnsondc...you are right on. all to many people get caught up and misled by individual stats. If every fan were only smart enough to realize that the games is totally a team game and the only thing that matters or counts is how many wins can each team generate. Baseball is not a game based on how many or how much one individual can gain for himself. Except for pitchers, where the only meaningful stat is wins or saves, because every win or save is the has the same direct result for the team. Since wins are why the game is played and determines the best, wins is the single most important factor in determining the best of the best.
"First off Gene Michael identified nothing, WIN METHOD has been the major reason the Yankees have been the best team in baseball over the past 15 years."
I think Stick and his scouts would be surprised to hear that. :)
Also, how about Franklin Stubbs (a total dog) and Balboni? You can't tell me that those guys were greater than Donnie. It's just not true.
It has been great not having Afraud in the lineup. If it only could be forever.
A win from CC and we take a series. Which we need to do on a steady basis.
Hoosier... Michaels would not be surprised to hear that. He did his job. When Steinbrenner tells him to sign a player, Michaels signs him. You never answered my question. Which is what we here would expect from someone who answers the question the only way it should be answered, it would destroy their fools argument. Win or go home.
We have the perfect storm brewing. everything we do turns out wrong. Ugh
Sorry, happy to turn to that point. The all-star approach doesn't work well, as the Yankees of the early '80s showed. But I don't think making up an "all-ringbearer" team is necessarily the answer. I think of Bill Parcells, who brought in experienced winnners like Everson Walls and Dave Duerson for the football Giants. Some of those guys definitely help your team, but you want a horse or two also.
Also: You may recall that Gene Michael refused Steinbrenner's requests on various occasions, notably big trades.
You know what just hit me? You're telling me that Mr. Steinbrenner listens to one consultant over his entire professional staff? Maybe you got a bridge in Brooklyn you'd like to sell me too. Or how 'bout some of that swampland. It ain't the way major-league baseball works.
And how about answering my question directly? Franklin Stubbs or Don Mattingly?
Hoosier...I will be happy to answer your question, but only after you answer my question, which was asked first.
All your other comments, I will leave for WIN METHOD.
johnsondc, I believe my first post today addresses your previous question. To recap, I think adding some proven winners to the mix is beneficial.
Hope CC is OK. A good run up to the All Star game would be a big help.
Hoosier...here again is the question you id not answer.
If you where a manager for lets say ten years. Would you want players with the greatest individual stats of all time at each position and never win a WS....or would you rather have good mediocre to above average players at every position who helped your team win 2 or 3 WS rings?
The answer is either of the two choices. You decide whether you choose winning or losing.
Isn't that a "what if" -- the same kind of thing exactly that you told me only fools indulge in?
I gave you a realistic answer based on how teams are actually put together.
Now: Stubbs or Mattingly?
Hoosier, yep that's a what if. One which if you answer, either defeats your fools argument, or makes you an utter fool. You lose stat fraud and the WIN METHOD wins again. that is why so many people come here.
Losses are not good. We need to go into Atlanta and sweep them.
johnsondc..you are making a fool out of Harry. As manager, I will tke the players and team that wins me the World series. Every time.
harry hoosier
I'll help you with your question. But first, it is obvious you do not understand the WIN METHOD. You are trying to compare a part time player who played several positions with a full time first baseman. That would mean an unequal comparison that would not be fair to either player. Stubbs would qualify as a candidate to compare to other part time utility players who played several positions and helped lead their team to a WS ring. And Mattingly should be compared to other full time first baseman over the period of his career, of which several would surely be my selection over Mattingly if they helped their team to WS championships.
How exactly did I become a "stat fraud"? I haven't mentioned a word about individual stats.
Anyway, I'll be fair. I'll note (again) that I said, "the all-star approach doesn't work well." So I agree with you up to a point.
However, isn't taking players from all time against what WIN METHOD said in his post? It should be within one era. When I have a little time, I'll put together a squad of all-stars from the '80s and '90s who never won rings (including Donnie!) and one of the "ringbearers" from that era. It should be a fun comparison.
Since I've given you at least some credit, I think I deserve the benefit of your views on Stubbs vs. Mattingly. Thanks in advance.
That is what I said. Compare Mattingly to other full time first basemen over the period of his career. You became a stat fraud when you try to raise a full time player who never helped his team win a WS over full time players who have helped their team win WS rings at the same position over the same time period.
Down goes Harry Hoosier, down goes Harry Hoosier.
Winning is what baseball is about. I don't give the arse of a rat what anyones individual stats are as long as my team wins.
That's a reasonably fair answer, bigbadwolf. Thanks for the courtesy (something that's in short supply with some people here.)
Notes: Stubbs was a first baseman by trade. That's what he mainly played in college; he played some outfield in the minors and majors because many first basemen were competing with him. He played 64% of his games in the majors at 1B, and was the primary starter for his team in four years. So I think my comparison is not invalid.
Balboni is in the same boat. (Like Mattingly, he had a bad back, but there were other bigger reasons why his career went south.)
Here are the stars of the 1980-1995 era who never won World Series rings. This is approximate, because some guys started earlier, but this period covers the heart of their careers.
What I found interesting was that the pitchers from this era who have the big career stats all got a ring at one point or another. This suggests to me that the everyday players who never got rings missed out in part because their teams didn't have good pitching. We have many Hall of Famers here, with great character (the only guy who maybe leaves something to be desired is Rice).
1B: Don Mattingly
2B: Ryne Sandberg
3B: Tim Wallach
SS: Robin Yount
LF: Tony Gwynn
CF: Dale Murphy
RF: Andre Dawson
C: Carlton Fisk
DH: Jim Rice
Back with the "ringbearer" team later.
Wang gets another chance tonight. QWe need him to come up big and get the rotation set.
This is the "ringbearer" team: guys who won two WS apiece during the 1980-85 era. Note that I haven't been able to fill all the positions yet, and there are a couple of flaws in the selections I do have. This suggests to me that the WIN METHOD does not always produce a clear-cut leader for any given era. I welcome anyone who actually wants to do some thinking to help out/comment.
Anyway, this is the makings of a nice solid team. It would be fun to see them play the guys who didn't have the teams around them to win any rings at all.
1B: Kent Hrbek
2B:
3B: Howard Johnson
SS: Greg Gagne
LF: Lonnie Smith
CF: Devon White
RF:
C: Pat Borders
DH:
In the non win list you stated 1980 - 1995. The win list states 1980 -1985. Which is it, the 5 year or the 15 year?
Sorry about that typo, Steve. It's the 15 years, 1980-1995.
No sweep in Atlanta. Wow, are we not hitting anyone.
These last couple of weeks have been horrid. Afraud needs to go for starters.
Harry...There were many great first basemen from 1980 to 1995 who helped their team win WS rings. Mattingly wouldn't even make the squad. Mattingly only started one or two All Star games.
My kingdom for a WIN. Something has to give. If Afraud has to go, sobeit.
Denis, Frank...when you look back since the coming of Arod, it has been a slow steady decent down the ladder. Just more losses each year.
You guys are probably right. WIN METHOD never wanted him signed since back to 2001.
4-9 over the past 13 games is horrid. no hitting, average pitching and afraud. a lsong combination.
't it amazing what a few runs can do. You guys should knock Afraud more. He finally got a hit that meant something. first time in three weeks.
Two in a row tonight. Have the bats awoken.
Ca we get the train back on track aqnd rolling again, one win at a time.
Cano out tonight. Cody Ransom to play 2b. Glad to see him back.
Nice win last night. Ransom hit the ball hard and looked good.
I just can't believe my eyes when I see some of the plays Jeter makes defensively. Are the talking heads who knock him, that utterly blind and stupid?
Lets get on for the ride. Choo choo.
lets put away the muts once for all.
Sweep the Mets.
Jeter is still the most valuable player in the game. Offense, defense, intangibles, character, and integrity.
Another good win gives us 3 consecutive wins. Several wasted runs late in the game. Go for 4 today.
Kuԁos
Loоk into my ωeb blog: gardening
Howdy! I cοuld have swоrn I’νe visited this web ѕite befoге but
aftеr looking at a few of the posts I realized
it’s new to mе. Nonethelеss, I’m certainlу pleased I
stumbled upon it and І’ll bе boοkmarking it and checking
bacκ often!
My web blοg - simply click the following internet site
Hi, I read yοur new stuff regulaгly. Your humoristic style is awesomе, keep
it up!
my wеbѕite ... gps watches
Post a Comment