Master Index of Archived Threads


Backman turned down by Mets for AA job

Mark Healey Oct 23 2005 12:27 AM

Thought you guys would be interested in this: http://www.gothambaseball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1279 let me know what you think...

Nymr83 Oct 23 2005 12:50 AM

]Fear that the New York media's love affair with hand-picked manager Willie Randolph will sour if the big-budget Mets get off to a slow start in his second year, and those same "Willie's a Winner" pundits will be calling for a much-more qualified candidate in Backman to get Randolph's job? everyone knows i'm not a fan of wee willie small brain, but what exactly makes backman "much-more qualified" to manage in the majors?

Mark Healey Oct 23 2005 12:56 AM

Because he's a two-time Minor League Manager of the Year, whose won two championships at the A and AA levels? Oberkfell was more qualified as well, and he didn't even get an interview...

Edgy DC Oct 23 2005 05:57 AM

I'm a little dubious of the insider action. You don't need to show cause in order to not hire someone. I'd be less concerned with Bernezard's alleged black book hiring techniques than with the fact that somebody's chuckling behind his back to the media.

TheOldMole Oct 23 2005 06:16 PM

What has Backman done that Bobby Cox hasn't?

Zvon Oct 23 2005 08:39 PM

I definately think that Backman should be given the chance, and by the Mets. He knows the game and should be able to at least manage on a minor leaue level and keep his nose clean,and maybe manage an MLB team someday. ]With a bunch of Ivy-League, never-played-the-game, 30-something suits running things behind the scenes with increasing regularity, there's no appreciation for a rough-and-tumble guy who manages as much with his gut as with his brain. I dont buy this cuz thats exactly the type of manager Ozzie Guillen is.

Frayed Knot Oct 23 2005 08:49 PM

Without not claiming to know all the details of either case, it's safe to say it would be misleading at best to paint all domestic disturbances (or any crime or potential crime) as if there are no distinctions within the category. Part of Backman's problem involves the fact that he was on probation for one or more existing transgressions when another cropped up (DUI, tax, domestic abuse). He also wasn't forthcoming about it to the DBacks during the process (or they didn't ask). In Cox's case (IIRC) his wife called police during an argument she thought was about to get out of hand. It never did get physical and charges were never filed even though the incident became public because of the police response.

Edgy DC Oct 23 2005 08:55 PM

]I dont buy this cuz thats exactly the type of manager Ozzie Guillen is. Depending on the angle people are shooting for, that could be exactly the type of manager Willie Randoph is.

metirish Oct 23 2005 09:01 PM

Certainly Kenny Williams who played appreciates Guillen, Williams did some job with this team.

metirish Oct 23 2005 09:06 PM

]Depending on the angle people are shooting for, that could be exactly the type of manager Willie Randoph is. Yes"going with my gut" was a favorite refrain of Willies, which of course got him hammered more than a few times..

Zvon Oct 23 2005 09:16 PM

="Edgy DC"] ]I dont buy this cuz thats exactly the type of manager Ozzie Guillen is. Depending on the angle people are shooting for, that could be exactly the type of manager Willie Randoph is. lol...lets give Willie his 2 more seasons and see if he learns and he grows. If theres no indication of this in 2007 then drop him anytime during that season.

Elster88 Oct 24 2005 08:12 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ]Fear that the New York media's love affair with hand-picked manager Willie Randolph will sour if the big-budget Mets get off to a slow start in his second year, and those same "Willie's a Winner" pundits will be calling for a much-more qualified candidate in Backman to get Randolph's job? everyone knows i'm not a fan of wee willie small brain, but what exactly makes backman "much-more qualified" to manage in the majors? Oh, just maybe the fact that he had managed a game prior to 2005? Not hard to figure out.

Edgy DC Oct 24 2005 08:57 AM

It's certainly part of the argument. It doesn't make it slam-dunk, though. There's a lot of weird stuff here. Let's start with the principle that the Mets --- and every other team --- do not need to justify who they don't hire as their AA manager. Of course, they'd issue a no-comment. If you want to speculate why (and that's all this is --- specualtion with an agenda), start with the notion that he's the type of guy who'd cooperate with a media campaign, following his inquiry, slagging them for not hiring him.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 24 2005 10:27 AM

let me know what you think... Sure it’d be nice if Wally Backman gets another shot. And you made a case for the benefits of giving that shot, but that's about all you accomplished. Suggesting that hiring someone else — basically *anyone else* — would be “counterproductive” is a pretty serious leap. And I also don’t buy your suggestion that the Mets somehow know hiring Backman would be so brilliant, it could cause sportswriters to turn on Willie. For one thing, they’ll turn on Willie at some point anyway -- a bad start alone next year is all the excuse they’ll need. And since when does a guy need to be a Mets employee to become a sexy name to drop? Piniella sure wasn’t, and I’m sure his name comes up at the first sign of trouble. With a bunch of Ivy-League, never-played-the-game, 30-something suits running things behind the scenes with increasing regularity, there's no appreciation for a rough-and-tumble guy who manages as much with his gut as with his brain. I don’t believe this statement is very supportable to begin with; and I don’t like the whiff of dismissiveness from the discription. What’s next? “Theo Epstein watches his laptops instead of the games!” I don’t think “gut” and “brain” need to be mutually exclusive terms -- Backman’s career ought to prove that. With Garner and Guillen in the World Series, and guys like Randolph, Robinson and Leland hired, and Omar running a front office, you could argue appreciation for rough-and-tumble guys is as high as it’s ever been. * So, in a way, it's understandable why the D'Backs passed on Backman, as they were more concerned with their image than winning baseball games, given how retread replacement Bob Melvin bumbled his way to 77-85 record in the dismal NL West. "There's no doubt in my mind, that Wally Backman would have won the NL West this year with that team," one industry source told Gotham Baseball. "He has a great baseball mind, and he deserves another shot." Did your source speak anonymously for fear of being suspected of smoking pot? Without making an argument as to how much Melvin bumbled or didn’t bumble, the fact is the D-backs outperformed their pythagorean by 11 games -- in other words they won a lot more often than their runs for and against would suggest. Are we to believe Backman is magical enough to tack another 6 wins onto that? An extra 17 wins would have won almost any team any division. Teams finish where they do mainly because that’s where their talent takes them. The Dbacks ranked in the bottom half of the league in pitching and hitting. * Finally I think you could use an editor. The article is loaded with awful sentences: Backman and his Arizona-based agent Terry Bross had already come to that conclusion themselves, as they contacted the Mets for that every reason, only to be turned down. you mean “very” According to published reports, Backman pleaded guilty in January 2001 for a DUI charge — an incident which occurred in 1999 and subsequently fought for two years -- and was given a sentence of five years probation, with the condition that he have "no violations of criminal law." Your subject changes here from Backman to an incident and back again. * "Wally's name is probably not in (Mets' assistant GM Tony) Bernazard's little black book," chuckled one Mets insider. More likely is the Mets' Dan Snyder-like disdain for any kind of bad publicity -- meaning it defied logic -- which is probably why they get so much of it. This entire passage is a disaster. The second sentence makes no sense at all -- I think you’re trying to say that the Mets do things that defy logic because they’re frightened of bad publicity, only to get bad publicity as a result, but it reads as though to mean: “It is more likely than Tony Bernazard having Backman on speed dial that the Mets’ disdain for any kind of bad publicity defies logic which is probably why the Mets get so much disdain for any kind of bad publicity.” Ugh! * IN any event, if the the organization is thinking that the New York fan would dislike a Backman hire, they are sorely mistaken. One “the” is enough. Tense disagreement: “Organization” is singular, so it should be “it” and not “they.”

Edgy DC Oct 24 2005 10:43 AM

See, I was painfully laying off all the bad editing, trying to draw Mark back in to disucuss how a guy can "bumble" his way in managing a team that improves by 26 freaking games. Then you swoop in.

MFS62 Oct 24 2005 11:23 AM

Edgy, when you see an opportunity, you've got to go for it. Later

Edgy DC Oct 24 2005 11:26 AM

You're the one who claims I'm uncivil.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 24 2005 11:33 AM

There's also some ethical hanging sliders. In Gotham Baseball's opinion, there was certainly motivation for the Arizona media, namely the AZR's Craig Harris, to ring the bell of indignant self-righteousness. Serious allegation. Had Harris been a fan of Wally Backman, I suppose then it would be OK to sit on potentially damaging information about him.

MFS62 Oct 24 2005 11:37 AM

When it comes to editing grammar, that's what you do very well. Later

Edgy DC Oct 24 2005 12:06 PM

I'm uncivil but my editing of other posters is welcome, even encouraged.

MFS62 Oct 24 2005 12:21 PM

It was meant as a compliment. It is something you are very good at.. And, I have been concerned with the overall civility of the board. Things like saying please (when you ask for some information), and thank you(when you get it). Or complimenting other posters on providing an interesting link, piece of information or a funny line. You have periodically pointed out ways for me to improve the receptivity of my posts,including finding facts to back up my opinions, and I thank you for that. Later

TheOldMole Oct 24 2005 12:31 PM

Is that the St. Johns - NY Mets Terry Bross?

Nymr83 Oct 24 2005 05:20 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="Nymr83"] ]Fear that the New York media's love affair with hand-picked manager Willie Randolph will sour if the big-budget Mets get off to a slow start in his second year, and those same "Willie's a Winner" pundits will be calling for a much-more qualified candidate in Backman to get Randolph's job? everyone knows i'm not a fan of wee willie small brain, but what exactly makes backman "much-more qualified" to manage in the majors? Oh, just maybe the fact that he had managed a game prior to 2005? Not hard to figure out. if that were true then a career .230 hitter who is 39 years old and can't play the field was "more qualified" than david wright at the point wright was brought up.

Elster88 Oct 24 2005 06:28 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="Elster88"] Nymr83 wrote: ]Fear that the New York media's love affair with hand-picked manager Willie Randolph will sour if the big-budget Mets get off to a slow start in his second year, and those same "Willie's a Winner" pundits will be calling for a much-more qualified candidate in Backman to get Randolph's job? everyone knows i'm not a fan of wee willie small brain, but what exactly makes backman "much-more qualified" to manage in the majors? Oh, just maybe the fact that he had managed a game prior to 2005? Not hard to figure out. if that were true then a career .230 hitter who is 39 years old and can't play the field was "more qualified" than david wright at the point wright was brought up. I won't even try explaining why this is wrong. It should be obvious.

Nymr83 Oct 24 2005 07:14 PM

why is "mr. experienced manager" not listed at all on baseball reference as a manager? edit- i'll cut the sarcasm out and answer my own question- because backman had just as much mlb managerial experienmce as randolph, NONE. now which is better preperation for a job, being on the yankee bench for ten years or managing some independent league team? i don't like randolph but i think he's more qualified.

Frayed Knot Oct 24 2005 09:12 PM

Backman managed A & AA teams for two different organizations (ChiW & Arz) not independant league teams. Or maybe he managed in indie leagues also but that wasn't the extent of his experience.

Nymr83 Oct 24 2005 09:48 PM

i forgot the AA stint, i'll say that that makes him not unqualified in my mind, though i still would have chosen randolph over him. what makes a guy "qualified" anyway? it seems to me that any former big leaguer with a reputation as a "nice guy" has a shot at a job.

Mark Healey Oct 25 2005 10:21 AM

TheOldMole wrote: Is that the St. Johns - NY Mets Terry Bross? Yes

Mark Healey Oct 25 2005 10:22 AM

Zvon wrote: I definately think that Backman should be given the chance, and by the Mets. He knows the game and should be able to at least manage on a minor leaue level and keep his nose clean,and maybe manage an MLB team someday. ]With a bunch of Ivy-League, never-played-the-game, 30-something suits running things behind the scenes with increasing regularity, there's no appreciation for a rough-and-tumble guy who manages as much with his gut as with his brain. I dont buy this cuz thats exactly the type of manager Ozzie Guillen is. Is Ken Williams a 30-something suit?

Mark Healey Oct 25 2005 10:39 AM

]Sure it’d be nice if Wally Backman gets another shot. And you made a case for the benefits of giving that shot, but that's about all you accomplished. That was the point of the column. ]Suggesting that hiring someone else — basically *anyone else* — would be “counterproductive” is a pretty serious leap. Well, not hiring Backman, arguably the best minor league manager candidate there is, is counterproductive to me. IMO, of course. ]And I also don’t buy your suggestion that the Mets somehow know hiring Backman would be so brilliant, it could cause sportswriters to turn on Willie. For one thing, they’ll turn on Willie at some point anyway -- a bad start alone next year is all the excuse they’ll need. We'll see. ]And since when does a guy need to be a Mets employee to become a sexy name to drop? Piniella sure wasn’t, and I’m sure his name comes up at the first sign of trouble. If he's in the organization already? And winning? I disagree there. ]I don’t believe this statement is very supportable to begin with; and I don’t like the whiff of dismissiveness from the discription. Who's running things in Texas now? Tampa? Toronto? Los Angeles? That's a trend. ]What’s next? “Theo Epstein watches his laptops instead of the games!” I don’t think “gut” and “brain” need to be mutually exclusive terms -- Backman’s career ought to prove that. With Garner and Guillen in the World Series, and guys like Randolph, Robinson and Leland hired, and Omar running a front office, you could argue appreciation for rough-and-tumble guys is as high as it’s ever been. Hunsicker hired Garner, Ken Williams hired Guillen...MLB hired Robsinon and Dombrowski hired Leyland (and don't put Randolph in that group please)...those are baseball guys making baseball hires. Those gentlemen want their skippers to have an opinion. Think that's the case of ther new breed that takes their cues from the Genius? ]Did your source speak anonymously for fear of being suspected of smoking pot? Without making an argument as to how much Melvin bumbled or didn’t bumble, the fact is the D-backs outperformed their pythagorean by 11 games -- in other words they won a lot more often than their runs for and against would suggest. Are we to believe Backman is magical enough to tack another 6 wins onto that? An extra 17 wins would have won almost any team any division. Teams finish where they do mainly because that’s where their talent takes them. The Dbacks ranked in the bottom half of the league in pitching and hitting. Opinion *** The rest of post has nothing to do with the issue and is noted.

sharpie Oct 25 2005 10:43 AM

Part of the job of being a manager, especially in New York, is dealing with media, doing public relations, etc. Could Backman have been effective that way? I don't know, but Randolph did know the territory and for the most part handled himself pretty well in that arena. Torre's mastery of that aspect of his job has as much to do with his still being there as winning those 4 World Series.

Mark Healey Oct 25 2005 11:28 AM

sharpie wrote: Part of the job of being a manager, especially in New York, is dealing with media, doing public relations, etc. Could Backman have been effective that way? I don't know, but Randolph did know the territory and for the most part handled himself pretty well in that arena. Torre's mastery of that aspect of his job has as much to do with his still being there as winning those 4 World Series. Having spoken to the man, and my partner having covered him when he was a Met, he'd be fine. No woirse than Willie, that's for sure.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 26 2005 05:59 AM

So if Willie isn't a "blood and guts" manager does that make him a "no opinion suit" or yet another category? I don't believe WWSB is an automaton doing Omar's bidding, partly because I don't give Omar credit for being that calculating and partly because it was obvious WWSB demonstrated he was freewheeling enough to make his own wobbly decisions. And while I can see not being a cheerleader, I don't get all the Morganesque hostility toward Beane. Change in baseball is glacially slow and fans ought to be happy a different approach is even being explored. Writers at one time railed against the home run and integration too. Folks who want a managerial change in Metland have to realize that Willie can screw up game decisions all day long but isn't going anywhere unless or until Pedro or Beltran says he oughta. Mientkiewicz bitching obviously isn;t going to be enough.

MFS62 Oct 26 2005 07:22 AM

"And while I can see not being a cheerleader, I don't get all the Morganesque hostility toward Beane. Change in baseball is glacially slow and fans ought to be happy a different approach is even being explored." To me, Morgan is an example of the reticence to change that you mention among baseball "traditionalists". (For lack of a better word) In the case of Beane, they are waiting to see if his theories produce a world series winner and sunsequent winning tradition, however they will measure that. One would guess that if the A's begin to be highly successful, those writers will begin writing tons of articles about how the rest of baseball should start emulating him. You're right. From reading posts on various sites, it seems like the fans, and especially the ones comfortable with new player performance measures, have begun to have a higher degree of appreciation for his theory. But he isn't only about stats. His approach still incorporates a good deal of traditional thinking, especially in terms of scouting skills as well as tools. But many of the writers, like Morgan can't seem to get by the stats part, and base their opinions only on that. Its just my gut feel. Later

Johnny Dickshot Oct 26 2005 07:43 AM

What most folks don't fully appreciate is Beane's strategy was borne of economic pressures and that succeeding in the face of them meant attacking weaknesses in traditional practices to exploit underlying value; not merely for the sport of it. The "win a World Series standard" is impossibly high and by that measure, every strategy is a failure. Beane's teams have averaged 93.7 wins a year over the last 7 years -- only the Yankees (680 wins) and Atlanta (674 wins) have won more games since 1999 than Oakland (656).

Frayed Knot Oct 26 2005 07:48 AM

btw ... if the ChiSox get credit for hiring the 'rough-and-tumble' Guillen do they also get demerits for rejecting Backman? Wally, IIRC, was not only passed over but was none too happy about the way it went down considering the success he had had with that organization.

Edgy DC Oct 26 2005 07:57 AM

In many ways, I'm sure teams will fashion their attitude toward the results based on their early conclusions. Beane has succeeded, and succeeded consistently. No, he hasn't produced a Series winner. But a lot has to break right for that to happen also, particluarly with a team with a craptastic budget. It's a tough standard to hold him... Oh crap, I'm scrolling down now and seeing that Dickshot has already said all this. What a Dickshot. Frayed Knot, send me a PM with a number from one to 500.

Mark Healey Oct 26 2005 05:14 PM

]So if Willie isn't a "blood and guts" manager does that make him a "no opinion suit" or yet another category? I think Willie is a feel manager who has no clue how to manage a pitching staff, which is why the Mets had RP running that group last year. He's certainly has gone out of his way to state he's not a "stats guy". ]I don't believe WWSB is an automaton doing Omar's bidding, partly because I don't give Omar credit for being that calculating and partly because it was obvious WWSB demonstrated he was freewheeling enough to make his own wobbly decisions. Agreed, but I never said he was. ]And while I can see not being a cheerleader, I don't get all the Morganesque hostility toward Beane. Change in baseball is glacially slow and fans ought to be happy a different approach is even being explored. Writers at one time railed against the home run and integration too. Ultimately, it's Beane's arrogance and disdain for "media", and his contention that "luck" is why his teams don't win playoff rounds, is what that gets him in trouble with writers. ]Folks who want a managerial change in Metland have to realize that Willie can screw up game decisions all day long but isn't going anywhere unless or until Pedro or Beltran says he oughta. Mientkiewicz bitching obviously isn;t going to be enough. I've said that plenty of times myself, but I also think that a high payroll complicates that dynamic a bit.

Mark Healey Oct 26 2005 05:17 PM

="Johnny Dickshot"]What most folks don't fully appreciate is Beane's strategy was borne of economic pressures and that succeeding in the face of them meant attacking weaknesses in traditional practices to exploit underlying value; not merely for the sport of it. The "win a World Series standard" is impossibly high and by that measure, every strategy is a failure. Beane's teams have averaged 93.7 wins a year over the last 7 years -- only the Yankees (680 wins) and Atlanta (674 wins) have won more games since 1999 than Oakland (656). How about winning a playoff round? You can only blame bad luck so many times.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 27 2005 05:42 AM

I haven't blamed bad luck even once yet. Beane's underlying point is that even the best teams are capable of losing any 3 of 5. Which is true and not all that controversial. I'll agree Terrence Long & Jeremy Giambi's screwups were bad plays and not necessarily bad luck, but otoh it's not as if having Foulke on the mound with a one-run lead in a closeout game is evidence of poor design.

Mark Healey Oct 27 2005 05:52 AM

]I haven't blamed bad luck even once yet. Beane's underlying point is that even the best teams are capable of losing any 3 of 5. Which is true and not all that controversial. I never said you did. Beane does, all the time. ]I'll agree Terrence Long & Jeremy Giambi's screwups were bad plays and not necessarily bad luck, but otoh it's not as if having Foulke on the mound with a one-run lead in a closeout game is evidence of poor design. Good point.

Edgy DC Oct 27 2005 09:46 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 09:59 PM

I get a lot more media contempt of Beane than Beane contempt of the media. For what it's worth, Joe Frazier won five pennants in 10 years managing in the minors. He was reportedly deprived of a sixth by less than one percentage pont, because of a rainout that wasn't made up. (Not like his team was guaranteed to win that.) That doesn't mean much because I don't really have much against Frazier as few managers have ever had a carpet pulled out from under them as he did in 1976. Nonetheless his tenure is largely (but not exclusively) regarded as a failure. These types of discussions are maddeningly unresovleable because folks never agree on what is a fair standard on which to judge a manager. Did Casey Stengel make Mickey Mantle and company better, or did Mickey Mantle and company just make Casey look good? Until one of us lands a fat grant, I don't think those eggs are about to be unscrambled.

Mark Healey Oct 27 2005 09:57 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I get a lot more media contempt of Beane as Beane contempt of the media. For what it's worth, Joe Frazier won five pennants in 10 years managing in the minors. He was reportedly deprived of a sixth by less than one percentage pont, because of a rainout that wasn't made up. (Not like his team was guaranteed to win that.) That doesn't mean much because I don't really have much against Frazier as few managers have ever had a carpet pulled out from under them as he did in 1976. Nonetheless his tenure is largely (but not exclusively) regarded as a failure. These types of discussions are maddeningly unresovleable because folks never agree on what is a fair standard on which to judge a manager. Did Casey Stengel make Mickey Mantle and company better, or did Mickey Mantle and company just make Casey look good. Until one of us lands a fat grant, I don't think those eggs are about to be unscrambled. Very true.

Frayed Knot Oct 28 2005 08:05 AM

On the semi-related topic of 'Moneyball' bashing, the Sporting News chips in this week with a headline that reads; 'Who are the suckers now? White Sox & Astros prove teams don't need Moneyball or power to be successful' (umm, who ever said that you did?) ... and then go on to write an article which claims a lot, backs up little, uses individual examples as a substitute for proof, and continues to mis-state what the book was all about. ... [in 'Moneyball'] "legions of folks piled up evidence that defence, steals and bunts are for suckers" No. They. Didn't. [small ball is] "the way baseball should be" Oh really? What stone tablet did that come down on? They then go on to offer a bunch of stats which are often in direct contradiction to their point. I mean I wonder if it occured to them that pointing out that the two WS teams were; - each 3rd in their respective leagues in SBs; - 1st + 2nd in caught stealing; - 1st & 4th in Sac hits; - 12th and T12th in OBA; had anything to do with the fact that they were 9th & 11th in runs scored, or even that being below average in runs scored is a bad thing? Like maybe if the two teams weren't getting runners erased at a 30% clip whenever they set them in motion that those runs scored ranks wouldn't be as low. And just maybe the teams each being 2nd in team ERA had something to do with the winning thing?

metirish Oct 28 2005 08:07 AM

IIRC Frayed Knot Ken Willimas got bashed a bit in "Moneyball", or at least came accross as if he got duped by Beane...

Frayed Knot Oct 28 2005 08:26 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 28 2005 08:33 AM

The only hit I remember Williams taking in the book was when he (inexplicably in Beane's mind) drafted (reliever) Royce Ring ahead of (starter) Joe Blanton. And I don't bring this topic up to bash Williams. Now is certainly not the time to be doing this as it's obvious that Williams had himself a helluva year. It's just that the media in general is in love with "small ball" and seem to go out of their way to "prove" it's the right choice, often by selectively picking only those stats which back their point while ignoring others (like neglecting to mention that the 'small ball' Sox were 4th in AL HRs). In other words, it's the classic case of choosing the conclusion first and then building a story around that. And in this case, 'The Sporting News' didn't even do a very good job of that.

Edgy DC Oct 28 2005 08:33 AM

Well, the best defense for small ball in this context is that, if you're going to be 9th and 11th in run scored, small ball (as if that's a monolith ---- "moneyballers on this side and small-ballers on that") can help you score those fewer runs at the right time. The funny thiing to me is that a key to the moneyball strategy --- valuing guys who can get a walk --- used to be a key to the small ball strategy (at least as I understood it), until these stupid lines got drawn. Backman and Randolph were certainly good at working walks.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 28 2005 09:13 AM

Again, it's not so much about deciding upon the one true religion, but the most economicly feasible strategy. Beane eschewed SBs and selected for walks not necessarily because they were superior strategies (even tho they probably are) but becaiuse they were superior strategies given the market. Walks were trading at a lower multiple of earnings than Stolen Bases, so he bought Walks and outfitted a strategy around them.

Nymr83 Oct 28 2005 09:35 AM

]And just maybe the teams each being 2nd in team ERA had something to do with the winning thing? bingo!