> Me:
> You might be able to, I suppose, but I'm not aware of any GMs who are able
> to do it consistently. The ones who have been the most consistently
> successful have done the opposite - they've ignored things like that in
> favor of empirical data.
I don't think they ignore the old fashion notion of chemistry at all. I don't think
that one must ignore data when one thinks about how to put a team together. I am not
arguing against good data. I am at least some of the time a scientist after all. But
data must be used and interpretted. It would be easy to just chrunch some numbers and
go out and try to outbid everyone else but that is not what successful teams do. Sure
they must have bales of money. They must also be able to produce profesional players
in their own system to either promote or trade. But then they must decide how to most
efficiently spend their money. The Yankees had to decide whether to go after Manny or
Mouse in past off season. Even they could not afford both. The Rangers got ARod and
both agree he is the best at his position and if he continues to produce at his
current level he will be the best shortstop and one of the best players ever. But was
paying him so much a wise decision? Did his aquisition hel!
!
p his team? Did it get him what
he wants? Now for sure Texas can get better but only time will tell whether this will
produce a championship. I think the great GMs do more than look at stats even very
good sophisticated stats.
>
> Gautam
