Add new comment

.

From MLBtraderumors.com:

The Mariners are ready to pursue a big name free agent, but the stakes are high after the Chone Figgins fiasco. "They know they can't be wrong on the next one," said a source to Olney.

Dr. D is more-or-less as much a fan of Bruce Lee as the next amigo is.  So he was stunned to see a Chuck Norris interview in which Chuck discussed his relationship with Lee.

Point A:  Norris is, by all accounts, as "nice" a person as it's possible to be nice.  He's soft-spoken, gets along with everybody up to and including Sylvester Stallone, and seems to have devoted his life to spiritual causes.

Point B:  Norris was a truly great martial artist.  He was the 1969 Karate Fighter of the Year, held his title for six years undefeated, and (most impressively) is the only Westerner in the history of Tae Kwon Do to hold the rank of 8th degree black belt Grandmaster.  The fact that they'd give him 8th means he's actually a lot better than that; 8th degree would be given to an American when nobody would argue about it.  It's like saying "Felix deserves a spot on a major league roster."

Point C:  In Norris' opinion, Lee wasn't a real martial artist.

:: blinks ::

An interviewer asked him one time, "So who would have won, you or Lee?," which was a dumb question to start with, considering the weight class difference.  But Norris didn't mention that.  He smiled, "Bruce never even got into the ring."  The interviewer pressed him, but Lee was obviously fast, yada yada ... Norris shook his head and smiled again.  "It's a different thing when you're doing it for real."

Much like if somebody were talking to Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, "Hey, man, there's a guy in my flag football league who can throw 105 yards and he can do this and that and the next thing."  Brady would say .... what, exactly?

Which brings us to this week's pinch off BJOL:

 .....................

 

Hey Bill, are you surprised that a lot of sports teams keep using the load-up-on-aging-free-agents strategy, even though it seems to fail miserably and expensively most of the time? I mean, adding some veteran pieces around a young or prime-age core is one thing, but counting on oldsters to carry the bulk of the load just seems to be an idea with failure built right into it. When you add in the greater cost of signing veteran players, it seems like a doubly bad idea. Any thoughts?

Asked by: OwenH

Answered: 11/12/2012

Well, yes, but. ...organizations that have resources tend to look to proven solutions.    "Poor" organizations are willing to gamble on younger players, and become comfortable gambling on improvement from young players.    Wealthy organizations tend innately to look for "proven" players.  

 ....................

It's easy to play poker for matchsticks, but go sit down and play for real money and EVERYBODY, that's everybody, gets destroyed the first time they play for real.  It's just different.  

My first chess tournament, 40 moves in 90 minutes time control, I played against other low-ranking amateurs.  Five games:  4 losses, 1 draw, and the draw was a miracle.  Would you believe me if I said I played out-of-my-mind superbly?  I really did.  I just didn't have the hang of real battle.

Neither did Paul DePodesta or J.P. Ricciardi, and they'd been ringside for years and years.  For you or I to imagine that we could GM a team, and do well, is delusional.

 .......................

"Appeal to authority" is listed on Wikipedia as a type of logical fallacy.  It isn't.  Appeal to authority isn't part of formal logic at all.  There's no "If A then B" inherent to it.  Now, it is true that you don't want to be handcuffed with dogma like "Bobby Fischer says not to bring your Queen out early, so I'm not going to."  But a wise man knows when another man is wiser than he is.  And he takes an extra 5 seconds to CONSIDER the opinion of his senior.

When the real GM's have a take on an issue -- such as a free agent -- the worst thing in the world we can do, is to brush it off reflexively for not lining up with our formulas.  When real GM's have a take on an issue, the appropriate response is to give the opinion a few seconds' consideration.  Sabermigos have a lot to learn here.

 ...........................

It's fine to count up WAR, and play rotisserie, and say that Mike Carp is a better use of resources than is Nick Swisher.  But we're playing for matchsticks.  We are, by definition, very limited in our understanding of the situation.

Does James' reply --- > layer your understanding of the reason that Prince Fielder types seem to be overpaid every winter?  Does it provide depth to your perception of the Josh Hamilton tour this winter?  You might scoff at poker pros for folding out of straight draws; the math doesn't seem to jibe.  But they're at the finals table.  You are not.

After the Figgins soft-skills fiasco, the Mariners will want to be very careful to get somebody with exceptional talent.  That's my kibitz from the penny-ante table.  :- )

.