Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Monday, August 29, 2005 |
Gammons On DePodesta
Peter Gammons, in his latest tollbooth-protected column (one you can view for free at Big Blue Wrecking Crew), says the Dodgers are in good shape despite this year's failures.
[To] make Milton Bradley the big picture for the entire Dodger season is preposterous, and to make this validation of the failures of Paul DePodesta as general manager is a major stretch. "The one thing that personally bothers me here is that the way the story is being treated reinforces stereotypes," says DePodesta.And what stereotype is that? Why, the one of Paul DePodesta caring more about numbers than personalities. But in the end, it's interesting DePo ultimately comes pretty close to acknowledging the stereotype is there for a reason:
"We tried to institute a five-year plan without an offseason," says DePodesta. "I freely admit that I have made mistakes. I admit I could have expressed our plans better, at times. But the stereotype that somehow is applied to me isn't completely accurate, and neither is the long-term health of the franchise."Wha? The stereotype of the long-term health of the franchise isn't completely accurate? Color me confused.
Comments:
Looks like either a case of bad transcription on the quote, or that Gammons needed to paraphrase or use some parenthetical to make it clearer.
Seems DePodesta's point is: the stereotype of the Dodgers being in disarray long-term is inaccurate.
In fact, I'm not convinced that the "without" in the quote shouldn't be "within."
Beyond that, I'm not sure how DePodesta's quote, in any fashion, "ultimately comes pretty close to acknowledging the stereotype is there for a reason." The quote has nothing to do with numbers vs. personality. You can try a quick fix using either method.
Seems DePodesta's point is: the stereotype of the Dodgers being in disarray long-term is inaccurate.
In fact, I'm not convinced that the "without" in the quote shouldn't be "within."
Beyond that, I'm not sure how DePodesta's quote, in any fashion, "ultimately comes pretty close to acknowledging the stereotype is there for a reason." The quote has nothing to do with numbers vs. personality. You can try a quick fix using either method.
"[T]he stereotype isn't completely accurate"? Maybe with some context I could see something different here, but how does this not concede in some way that the stereotype is partially accurate? To me it's part and parcel with the other front office mea culpas being issued this week.
I don't think DePodesta would ever have said in the past 18 months that the stereotype wasn't partially accurate. Of course he acknowledges using numbers to some extent. He's not saying that he signs players based on how strong their handshake is.
My point is that the quote itself sheds no information on the stereotype being "there for a reason," as you put it. The quote talks about the pace of transactions, and ineffective public communication. Beyond that, if anything, the quote goes out of its way to say that the steretoype is overblown.
My point is that the quote itself sheds no information on the stereotype being "there for a reason," as you put it. The quote talks about the pace of transactions, and ineffective public communication. Beyond that, if anything, the quote goes out of its way to say that the steretoype is overblown.
Given the team's -- any team's -- reluctance to admit mistakes, this is as close as you'll get to a full acknowledgement.
"Given the team's -- any team's -- reluctance to admit mistakes, this is as close as you'll get to a full acknowledgement. "
Of what?
Rob, I really think you've lost track of the discussion.
We weren't arguing whether DePo made mistakes. That's been stipulated. We were discussing your statment that DePo's quote indicated that "the stereotype (of numbers vs. personalities) is there for a reason."
What does his reluctance or willingness to admit mistakes have to do with the stereotype?
Of what?
Rob, I really think you've lost track of the discussion.
We weren't arguing whether DePo made mistakes. That's been stipulated. We were discussing your statment that DePo's quote indicated that "the stereotype (of numbers vs. personalities) is there for a reason."
What does his reluctance or willingness to admit mistakes have to do with the stereotype?
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your confusion.
The stereotype (paying too much attention to numbers and not enough to the human side of the equasion) led to the mistake of hiring Kent and Bradley on the same team. DePodesta admitted, in a very backwards way, that there was some truth to the stereotype. Sure, there's some caveats flying up, but he doesn't deny it completely.
The stereotype (paying too much attention to numbers and not enough to the human side of the equasion) led to the mistake of hiring Kent and Bradley on the same team. DePodesta admitted, in a very backwards way, that there was some truth to the stereotype. Sure, there's some caveats flying up, but he doesn't deny it completely.
Don't misunderstand me here, Adam, I'm not worried about chemistry from a "chemistry-causes-winning" standpoint (which, as you rightly point out, inverts the cause-and-effect); the problem is more at, what happens when you get two highly combustible personalities together.
"The stereotype (paying too much attention to numbers and not enough to the human side of the equasion) led to the mistake of hiring Kent and Bradley on the same team."
That is emphatically not in the DePo quote you excerpted. You are drawing your own conclusion - which may in fact be true. But in the quotes you cite, DePodesta never says Kent + Bradley = mistake.
DePodesta says he made mistakes. He does not cite the Bradley-Kent combo as one. He has been noticeably reticent in in specifying what his mistakes were. So far, the only one I've heard him (third-hand) admit to was, of all things, trading Dave Roberts.
I would guess DePo considers the Valentin signing a mistake, and Valentin from the start has appeared to be one of the best personalities on the team.
My belief is that DePo's good moves and bad moves transcend the numbers vs. personality debate, but most observers fail to see that. My belief is also that he thinks this. But the point is, the quote sheds no light on what DePo thinks his mistakes are. It sheds no new light on how much he holds his statistical evaluations responsible for the team's disappointment this year.
That is emphatically not in the DePo quote you excerpted. You are drawing your own conclusion - which may in fact be true. But in the quotes you cite, DePodesta never says Kent + Bradley = mistake.
DePodesta says he made mistakes. He does not cite the Bradley-Kent combo as one. He has been noticeably reticent in in specifying what his mistakes were. So far, the only one I've heard him (third-hand) admit to was, of all things, trading Dave Roberts.
I would guess DePo considers the Valentin signing a mistake, and Valentin from the start has appeared to be one of the best personalities on the team.
My belief is that DePo's good moves and bad moves transcend the numbers vs. personality debate, but most observers fail to see that. My belief is also that he thinks this. But the point is, the quote sheds no light on what DePo thinks his mistakes are. It sheds no new light on how much he holds his statistical evaluations responsible for the team's disappointment this year.
"I can understand why Depodesta would be unwilling to talk to Plaske or Simers about the dodgers, but why not talk to Jon over at Dodgerthoughts the way Beane does every year over at AthleticsNation, giving some insight into what his plans are and what he's been doing. All we're stuck with is speculation."
Er, I'm not sure which AN interviews you've been reading, but look at what Beane says and look at when he says it. By the time Beane says something to Tyler, it's already been said at least fifty times by folks with an inkling as to how the A's do business. I think he first talked about his reasoning for trading Hudson and Mulder to Blez sometime around June, at which point anyone who had given it some thought could see clearly what he was doing.
Er, I'm not sure which AN interviews you've been reading, but look at what Beane says and look at when he says it. By the time Beane says something to Tyler, it's already been said at least fifty times by folks with an inkling as to how the A's do business. I think he first talked about his reasoning for trading Hudson and Mulder to Blez sometime around June, at which point anyone who had given it some thought could see clearly what he was doing.
# posted by 
: 8/29/2005 09:50:00 PM
: 8/29/2005 09:50:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.