Bob: 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 help 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
Me: Bob, _nothing_ can guarantee a championship. That's what I've been saying all of this time. The Braves have won their division 10 consecutive years, but they've only won a World Series once. If they hadn't managed that once, it wouldn't mean that they were run by incompetents. There might be reasons for it, there might not be. That's something that can be looked at analytically. I can tell you that most of the reasons people offer aren't true. The Braves have a very low bullpen ERA for the postseason, their starting pitchers have actually done very well, and so on. Nothing can guarantee a championship, because bad luck happens. Were the Rangers right to sign A-Rod? I don't know. It depends on their revenue situation. The marginal return of the runs A-Rod will put on the board is calculable in terms of number of wins by using Bill James's Pythagorean projections. But it seems likely to me that A-Rod gives them the potential to have the best offense in the majors for nine years, simply by adding relatively cheap players at the corners. Given the plethora of superb hitting prospects they have in the majors, that seems to be exactly what they will do. They can then add pitching, either by trade, free agency, or development, and they might get to the postseason. They might not - they're in the same division with the A's and the Mariners, both of whom will be very good for a very long time. The A's in particular. Cleveland dominated the AL Central for years. They were a blown Jose Mesa save from winning the Series in 1995. Your argument, so far as I can tell, boils down to the idea that Kenny Lofton is an inferior player because Jose Mesa couldn't pitch. That does not make sense. _Nothing_ can guarantee a championship, so judging a team by whether it wins a World Series or not is analytically invalid, because no matter how good your team is, it still might not. You can just increase the odds. Gautam
