Olerud363

There was something that happened between Murphy, Farrell and the hitters. Lind hinted at it in March and AA blew up at him. Do I think he's at all responsible for the development of and on base focus/plate discipline/etc?? Sure. I mean he could of brought Dwayne Murphy with him, along side Butterfield. He didn't do that, so that helped. I think you guys are underestimating the power of stupidity. And the benefits of "not being crazy stupid". Farrell got away from Dwayne Murphy. That was a huge step. Farrell isn't a genius... but he is the type of guy who will listen to geniuses and can work with them. The Blue Jays don't have that. I bring up RIM sometimes, never worked there but know several people who have. RIM fell because they refused to believe what the geniuses believed. Zuckerburg, Steve Jobs, a few others saw that every little moron would want a hand help internet pager type thingy. Bill James saw the importance of statistics and analysis. Jays and RIM have a lot in common. Smart organizations follow the geniuses. Bad organizations are to proud and stick to their own views, even when it is obvious their own views are wrong.

People have a lot of trouble dealing with grey and fuzziness. The problem with anything is that to get in a position of power you need to be smiley, simple, clear, concise and full of ********. That's how you get promoted in an organization. (see Anthopoulus, Alex, Beeston, Paul). If you have views that are grey, or fuzzy people want to pigeon hole you into a black and white view. It's hilarious the reaction I get to the Farrell stuff. I think the Farrell situation says a lot about the Jays, and the Sox, and the people who run each organization. No where have I ever said that Farrell is worth 20 wins. But every time it comes up I get "20 win manager bro!!!"

Yes. Because good=genius... Farrell - believes in on base percentage?? Yes or no?? Farrell - good player development guy?? Yes or no?? Farrell - genius?? Yes or no?? My view is yes, yes, no. I've been consistent on that since April. Every step of the way people said that the red sox were going to implode, that Farrell was garbage, hasn't happened. You believe in your advanced metrics, and over analyzing crap. I believe in good people. Not geniuses, but not idiots like Beeston. I believe in on base percentage, player development, getting veterans WITHOUT giving up the farm. I respect baseball organizations that are aligned with my beliefs.

I agree Francona would of gotten them there... John Gibbons too. I like John Gibbons and would of been happy to see it. But I don't think everything went right.... Ellsbury lost 20 homeruns from his mvp type season, Ped lost some power, Buckholz missed half the season, Only one guy played more than 140 games (but a bunch were close). Everybody was beat up a bit. Long term red sox are about a 92 win organization, Jays 80.... They were each 5 off that in 2013... but that's ordinary. Did Farrell make the red sox a 92 win organization?? No. But the fact that Farrell wanted the red sox, and the red sox wanted Farrell, says something about each of them. Competent people.

In 2012 the Red Sox had a fluke down year, and rebounded. They are what they are.... a 90-99 win team, that gets on base, scores runs, That's basically what they've been since 2003... with the exception of 2012. Farrell didn't make them what they are. John Henry did. Farrell isn't a genius... in a baseball organization to be successful you need to be lucky and NOT stupid. You need to believe in on base percentage, farm system, aging curves, park factors, strike out rate (for pitchers), and believe in defense but recognize it is hard to scout and measure. If you believe in all that.... maybe you can get a further advantage by believing in super advanced metrics... or maybe not (because the advantage is too small to be significant above noise). Where you can get hurt is by believing in stupid things like "pull dat ball", riiibeess!!, veteran presence. Prospects never develop. blah, blah, blah. Farrell is NOT stupid, while some people in the Blue Jays chain of management are stupid. Farrell is savy and left to be part of an organization where no one believed in stupid s***, and just wanted to win. That's his accomplishment, he left to avoid stupidity and work with competent people, and he gets to be in the World Series and win awards because of it. People have gained more for doing less.. just the way the world works. Work with smart people... it helps.

Lester had his 5th best season. Lester has a career era of 3.75, 117+, was 3.74 110+ or last year. Napoli is a .859 ops guy who had .842 last year. Victorina arguably had his best year... but comparable to other years. Buckholtz was brilliant but missed half the season. Uehra was better then anybody possibly could of expected... but relievers aren't worth that much. He went from like a 2 WAR reliever to 3.5. What happened was John Farrell, is a good, baseball person, smart guy, player development guy, on base percentage guy. He did not agree on anything with Paul Beeston, so he left to be with like minded people. He was part of a great management team, that did everything right, had a deep belief in on base percentage, aqcuired veteran pieces without giving up youngsters.... just great smart people. Well deserved. Get out of your little Toronto bubble.

That looks pretty reasonable. The +3 peak looks a bit Gary Shefield... and if you did "comparables" allowing age to drift a bit (meaning Sheffield would still be a comparable because through age 22 he was much like Lawrie through 23, but some guy who did the same thing at 28 wouldn't be a comparable) then Shefield and Lawrie are very comparable, including injury and attitude issues.... Shefield would be the absolute best outcome of that type of player I am guessing...

That really bites... hopefully you get a chance to see a playoff game next year??

His current top 10 comparables on bbref include Andy Carey (0 500 at bat /.800 ops), Fernando Tatis (1), Aramis Ramizez (9), Dale Murphy (7), Adam Jones (2 so far, likely to have more), Jim Presley (1), Bill Melton (3), Row Howell (0), Corey Patterson (0), Robin Ventura (8). So that is 9-8-7-3-2*-1-1-0-0-0 .800 ops/500 ab seasons for those guys. (Edit: So if this is an indication, betting the under would be reasonable.... not an obvious bet, but reasonable). 4 guys over 2... 3 way over, with Jones likely to add a few more. I think people are still underestimating his "ceiling"... but have a good read on his "likely" outcome. Likely is Kelly Gruberish... Ceiling... still Scott Rolenish... Using this simple model (top 10 comparables) there is a 1/3 chance of a dissapointing career, 1/3 of an OKish career, and still 1/3 chance of an allstar career. As I've said on other threads I am hot a big believer in over-scouting his swing, and stuff like that (hole in his swing kind of thing). I do take the "peronality" analysis stuff a bit more seriously... so if someone has inside (or perhaps just publically known) info, that he's a douche, can't be coached... so will never be able to listen to coaches, maintain his swing, take care of himself, stay healthy... that might happen.

I wouldn't think this is true at all. As recently as 2011 the Cardinals won the world series. Squeaked in as the wild card, 8th in pitching, 1st in offense. A bunch of 2, 3s as starters. Won a World Series game 16-7, won another 10-9. And actually the 2012 Giants were an offense team, though it didn't appear so because of their park, 106 ops+, 96 era+, beat Verlander 8-3 to set the tone in the Series, admittedly there was a couple of 2-0 games, but sometimes it-s 11-5, sometimes it's 6-4, sometimes it's 1-0, just the way it works. I've mentioned the 93 Jays team... not because it is super unique (ie 2011 Cardinals) but just because it is the last real good team we had, and everyone over 30 should remember it... Good offense, great bullpen, mediocre starters... won world series games 8-5, 10-3, 15-14, and 8-6. What you say is not true. You seem like a reasonable guy... I don't understand why you think something that isn't true. A win is a win, a run is a run. I'm trying to tone it down a bit... but these are things I used to rant about... it's not you, it's humanity, a lot of people are wired funny and like to believe things that aren't true, we could get into religion, finance, medicine, politics, all kinds of topics, humans, even intelligent ones believe things that aren't true, just the way we are. Guess I'll just have to accept it and stop going crazy at all this.

Absolutely right. He actually didn't get fired in the end. There was a pretty big protest and they rehired him... Fired (justifiably so) after 95. I want to say something happened with his health after that.

And just so people know the status or our past arguments... Could some of the big boys on Wall Street using ultra secretive proprietary strategies, using vast pools of money from the superrich, and dealing with rare and complicated assett classes beat the market?? Others are more qualified to answer but it's atleast a reasonable premise. Could EastCoastJaysFan, spending much time on this message board (3 times as many posts as mentally unstable, unemployed loser, Olerud363), working out of Halifax(I think?), working with pools of money from local fisherman and charging them ridiculous fees, possibly being on the other end of trades with the big boys (someone has to... right??)... could he beat the market under these conditions? Completely different question.

I have no problem with anybody and everybody slagging me. It's a message board right? If I have you right you are the small time financial advisor from the maritimes?? Correct?? We've been at it before regarding the efficient market theory. Obviously you (like Stoeten) have a vested financial interest in certain arguments. For example you have to slag the efficient market theory in order to make money. And I know, your brilliant professor proved the efficient market theory wrong. I probably called you out on a few things. I am no fan of small time financial advisors. I just hope your opinion of me is solely because of the lack of quality of my posts, the smallness and cruelty in my opinions, the lack of logic, the obvious mental problems, etc. etc. etc. In that case.,,. you are correct and have a great point of view, as good as anybody's atleast. But if your opinion of me relates to our past arguments on the state and morality of the finance and investment advisor profession... then I can't take you seriously.

For a lot of people Stoeten was the "voice of joe fan". Just curious how old you are?? Stoeten played a roll like Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) played in the early to mid 90s. Dilbert was an edgy cartoon at one time that called out coorporate America. People of a certain age experienced life a little differently, the Blue Jays were champions and were gonna rebound from a couple bad seasons in the mid 90s, the economy was roaring, unemployment was 3%, everybody and anybody could get a job, there was no conflict in the middle east (or atleast that we cared to notice), Magic Johnson had aids... but he didn't die (and still hasn't) science and the internet were gonna save us all. But behind the scenes a guy named bin laden was scheming, the economy was a mirage and run by idiots, the internet was mostly gonna give us porn and message boards to slag each other on.... And Scott Adams kind of called it... his cartoons were basically, hey everything looks great... but uhhh... take notice of who is actually running things. Then when it all went to hell (right after they went after Clinton for getting a blow job in the oval office) Scott Adams sold out too. Basically started generating his cartoons with some software, making even more money with and in coorporate america and left us all behind... So that's Stoeten. He was the voice of the fan... now he seems to be the voice of the regime.

You'll probably get this a little more when you've lived some life. In any institution the media is important. I am assuming you've never gone to University, held a job, voted, run a household, paid taxes, maybe even never gone to highschool. You want to be president of your school?? CEO of a fortune 500 company?? Manager of the local burger king?? Politics and media are important. It helps to get the right people on your side. You want to effect change?? Stop a war?? Save the planet?? Make a lot of money somehow without doing much work?? Again media and politics are important. Stoeten is just an interesting figure because at one time he was the edgy, counter-culture, guy... who'd call out crap when he saw it. Now he's the "rational-benefit of the doubt" guy. Quite a change that coincide with his blog being bought by a larger coorporation (not Rogers). This team has a history of "controlling the message" going back to the Wilner suspension. As others have pointed out the media really doesn't look into things to deeply, or ask to many hard questions, and now we have this Stoeten who was asking hard questions, but all of a sudden isn't.

Obviously you don't think management is competent. And at this point that's a reasonable point of view. And that is why I keep bringing this up. His argument is always that we don't know for sure what is happening. And I concede that point. But it works both ways. Stoeten gives them benefit of the doubt... you don't. We don't know exactly what's going on... and that means both points of view are reasonable.... that's the definition of "don't know".

The interesting thing is that 2009 we were actually much closer then after 2012. "Mutiny" really messed all that up. Get the clubhouse together then bring back Scutaro, Halladay, and Rolin (only Scutaro was a free agent)... add the all-in pieces (remember you would have Snider to work with as a trade chip). Instead AA gives us - Cito retirement tour, Farrell training for Red sox, phony "all-in" to please suits. The AA era is not for the real fans, it's for suits and casuals, really for one fat "beestly" casual.

J.P Ricciardi was probably better. As anyone who reads my posts knows I believe in on base percentage and young players. I hate politics. J.P. was a guy who cared, not for his close friends, or about politics, but about the needs of fans like me, and realized that doing right for the intelligent fans was the best way to produce a winning team. Sure he had his flaws, no one is perfect. What I like about J.P. - believed in on base percentage, not afraid to use that dirty word - believed in young players, even if they weren't his own, Ash left him some bing... and he used it. Wells, Halladay, Rios, Orlando Hudson, Erik Hinske, Chris Woodward, Josh Phelps, Felipe Lopez, all given jobs. Used years one and two to evaluate, not for "Cito retirement tour". - good at finding/developing off the radar guys, Frank Cat, Reed Johnson, Zaun had success, later Scutaro. - avoided players like J.P. Arencibia who had the potential to tank the offense with a .250 obp. When faced with Kevin Cash or Zaun?? Zaun. When faced with Alex Gonzales or Chris Woodward/Lopez... Woodward/Lopez. - drafted and brought up HIll, Lind, Jansenn, Marcum, Romero, Snider traded for EE and Bautista. There was some talent for AA to work with. Some of it collapsed in value. Some of it excelled. - did not play politics and smoozala... fired Buck Martinez after 30 games, despite Buck being a franchise "fixture"... no easy exit for Buck. He had his flaws. But a guy who did right for the fans in a lot of ways.

I don't agree with the slagging of Gibbons part of your post. I like Gibbons. But I agree that Butter also would of been a good choice. (this was in reply to someone who said Gibbons sucks and the loss of Butters was huge... I agree with the Butters part...)

This is a good point. I am sure somebody has grilled him. They had to of?? I think? I hope? But remember how badly Cito got grilled?? Up to Wilnergate?? Remember how badly Ricciardi got grilled?? Dang... he got grilled winning 87 games cause the boys got on base to much. Toronto Star "If jays didn't do moneyball and weren't so white they'd be in the playoffs!" (no that's not a real headline, but sadly it's close to reality). It makes absolutely no sense. I guess he's a golden boy, fat, pudgy, soft, politician type, good schmoozer. A different breed then Cito (who I hate) and Riccardi (who I liked). They're jocks. So the writers are fat and pudgy, sort of the same soft types, and have these dream jobs that they never want to lose. They're good at recognizing the power brokers. Never cross the Beest. AA will be president some day so don't insult his pudgy ass, he's very well connected and could make your dreams for your blog come true, he can make sure you keep your sweet, easy, dream job for life.

Believe me I hear the feedback and I am sick of these Stoeten threads myself. I absolutely positively was not going to post any... for a while... maybe for good... until I saw this. http://blogs.thescore.com/djf/2013/10/07/coaching-carousel-dwayne-murphy-chad-mottola-out/#more-19476 Money quote "Life is bloody complicated. Ignoring that and trying to reduce its complicated questions into the most dull-headed binary ones imaginable does nothing to bring you closer to The Right Way. Posturing like you’re damn sure you know what’s going on in a room when you’re only able to look in through the keyhole is ridiculous." - Stoeten Life is indeed bloody complicated. It is also, sometimes, a lottery. Competent people can lose because of luck. Incompetent people can get prestigous jobs for being in the right spot at the right time. The mayor of Toronto can be a crackhead, the leaders of wallstreet can crash the world economy, the government of the world's most powerful country can't even agree to fund itself... but according to Stoeten it's utterly infeasible that the leaders of Toronto's mlb baseball team can be idiots. There is a lot of luck involved in life. And the luck can work both ways. The Beest, AA, all of them, could be amazingly competent and just hit by bad luck. But on the other hand maybe they really are idiots. Who knows. Apparently Stoeten I guess.

Don't joke about that. Cito got fired in 97... He was literally gone for only two seasons... then he was hitting coach again by fall of 99.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-24/sports/sp-49286_1_blue-jay I debated posting a new thread... obviously there is a thread dedicated to the Mottola firing... but I think this is a good thread in itself because a lot people might be to young to remember what happened to Hisle. I guess the point is weird s*** like this has been happening for 20 years. "Whatchya uppset about sonny?? What's makin' you blue?? Mottolla?? That hitting coach?? Ya liked him didga?? Sad he got fired?? Kind of weird aint it?? Well that ain't nothin' son... sit down and let me tell you a tale. It was the fall of 1993.... Blue Jays on top of the world. Top 3 averages in the league. And Larry Hisle the hitting coach was just mindin' his business getting ready for the World Series... and then...." "Grandpa take your meds... Billy don't listen to grandpa, he's just telling crazy tales"

This reminds me of what happened to Larry Hisle. I believe he actually kept his job because after news leaked he was fired there was an uproar.... http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-24/sports/sp-49286_1_blue-jay

I have no idea if Mottola was a good hitting coach or not. I certainly saw no huge problems. He seemed well respected and people have good things to say about him. I would speculate there is more to the story then we know. Perhaps Murphy and Mottola had conflict and it got out of hand... that would be my speculation. Out of "respect" to Murphy, Beeston had Mottola fired, to prevent problems for the next hitting coach AA negotiated Murphy's retirement. After all that happened why just Murphy and Mottola and not Pete Walker?? (I don't believe Murphy "retired" Jays let these guys get a "respecttul" exit).