From McCovey Chronicles via MLBTradeRumors.com

[filosofy29]

I'm sorry Sabean!!!

 

[gp956]

That new format is painful.

 

[tzill]

That new format is painful.

As was the old format in the comments. The new format for the blog is ok, the comment format still sucks ass.

 

[gp956]

From Grant Brisbee via Baseball Prospectus:

Grant Brisbee, head cheese over at McCovey Chronicles, sees Sabean as a GM who’s learned from his past mistakes—or some of them, at least.

“Sabean had his problems identifying good hitters on the free-agent market. He spent tens of millions on old shortstops and he spent $60 million on Aaron Rowand. But he also does a hell of a lot right.” He cites Sabean’s recent draft successes and also points out the dramatically different composition of the two World Series rosters.

“His work between 2010 and 2012 was masterful, turning over 75 percent of a championship lineup to get to another one. He's always been able to build a bullpen. And he avoided the temptation (and demands) to trade pieces of his young rotation for middle-of-the-order hitters.”

“He's a good GM,” Brisbee said. “I wouldn't have said that four years ago, but either he's changed or his luck has.”

Jeff Kent
J.T. Snow
Benito Santiago
Roos Davis
Andres Galarraga
Ellis Burks
Barry Bonds (2001, 2002)
David Bell
Bill Mueller (2002)
Moises Alou

That's a quick list of the players Sabean brought in over the first 6, or so, years of his GM tenure. There's no objective indication that Sabean has suddenly "learned" how to evaluate hitters. The winning of championships lately has everything to do with the pitching staff and the commitment to investing in the minor league system.

What Grant is doing in ascribing some kind of learning curve on the part of Sabean is exactly the same mechanism Tito employed to "explain" Matt Cain's success, i.e. given his opinion that Cain wasn't a very good pitcher. He postulated a change in Cain, and not an error in judgement on his part. Cognitive dissonance, with a chaser of Dunning-Kruger.

Chris Teeter, a postdoctoral fellow in Psychology at McMaster University, says it’s simple confirmation bias. “Armed with their initial idea of Sabean, people will seek information that confirms their idea of him and ignore any evidence to the contrary. So when he makes a bad move it reinforces their idea of him being less intelligent and when he makes a good move it is ignored or explained away. This keeps our mental model of him stable.”

Craig Goldstein, a graduate of UMass Amherst’s sports management program and a writer at FakeTeams.com, referred to this phenomenon as anchoring.

“People have already decided what they think about Sabean,” Goldstein told me. “They decided what they thought of him and since reality now disagrees with that perception they can either reassess (unlikely) or declare that Sabean got lucky.”

 

[tzill]

Here's an excerpt from his latest blog on SabeySabes:

It adds up to a flawed GM, but they're all flawed. I'm not sure if I'd consider him the best in baseball, but I know he's not close to 27th, either. Even when you consider the amazing turnover of the A's, you can make an argument that Sabean had the best year of any GM. Turning Andres Torres into Pagan, getting something of value for Jonathan Sanchez, trusting Brandon Crawford, giving up a non-prospect for Marco Scutaro, trusting Romo instead of overpaying for Jonathan Broxton … it was masterful stuff.

It's a complicated relationship between Giants fans and Brian Sabean. But I'm okay with him now. Better than okay, really. I'm so okay with him, that I'm willing to spend my rent money and buy myself World Champions gear on his behalf. It's only fair.

Doesn't sound like a guy hanging on to confirmation bias to me. Sounds like a guy who is re-assessing his opinion.

 

[gp956]

Doesn't sound like a guy hanging on to confirmation bias to me. Sounds like a guy who is re-assessing his opinion.

I didn't imply he was hanging on to conformation bias, but, since you bring it up, Grant is giving Sabean his due solely based on the current results, and explaining the break with his previous track record as a Sabean learning curve. That's an indication of confirmation bias, in itself, but more to my point - it's a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

Think about it for a second, and with reference to my list above, is it at all plausible that Sabean suddenly learned how to evaluate hitters 16 years into his tenure as GM? How can any intelligent objective observer make that assertion? That's just Grant pulling something out of his ass, petitio principii style, to explain a result he is wholly ill-equipped to explain.

 

[tzill]

I didn't imply he was hanging on to conformation bias, but, since you bring it up, Grant is giving Sabean his due solely based on the current results, and explaining the break with his previous track record as a Sabean learning curve. That's an indication of confirmation bias, in itself, but more to my point - it's a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

Think about it for a second, and with reference to my list above, is it at all plausible that Sabean suddenly learned how to evaluate hitters 16 years into his tenure as GM? How can any intelligent objective observer make that assertion? That's just Grant pulling something out of his ass, petitio principii style, to explain a result he is wholly ill-equipped to explain.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also point out that "giving Sabean his due based on results" is pretty much the definition of reassessing his evaluation process.

As to the learning curve argument, I don't see it as starkly as you do -- that is, I don't see Grant saying "Sabean SUDDENLY learned how to evaluate hitters." I think his theory is that Sabean has gotten better at it over the years. I accept your explanation that Pablo, Posey, Belt, Crawford, Panik, Brown are a result of an organizational and financial commitment to scouting and development, but there is some merit to the idea that Sabean has learned from the Edgardo Alfonso, Armando Benitez, Aubrey Huff type signings too.

In sum, I don't see it as Grant "pulling it out of his ass." I think there's a healthy dose of truth to his hypothesis that Sabean is getting better at his job. In addition, there is a good chunk of the results to be explained by simply spending money on scouting as well.

 

[gp956]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also point out that "giving Sabean his due based on results" is pretty much the definition of reassessing his evaluation process.

Not really. If Grant has anchored his previous opinion about Sabean, and is now ascribing the current results to some change in Sabean (or luck), then he's not reassessing his evaluation process at all. Hence, the tito vs. cain reference. All of which is in my first post - I really shouldn't have to remake that point. And I mention "giving Sabean his due," because believe it or not, there are individuals in this world that would deny the reality right in front of them. They might come up with some Selig conspiracy theory to "fix" the results, or some other nonsense - so all I'm doing with that statement is acknowledging that Grant isn't a a flat out nut.

As to the learning curve argument, I don't see it as starkly as you do -- that is, I don't see Grant saying "Sabean SUDDENLY learned how to evaluate hitters." I think his theory is that Sabean has gotten better at it over the years.

It's not really plausible to assert a Sabean learning curve after he's been a GM for 16 years. Especially considering Sabean's track record of bringing hitters throughout his tenure. Further, in what profession is there still a learning curve in core competency 16 years after being in the top position of an organization? That alone tells me a ton about Grant's experience level in life, business, and education.

Here's what is really going on: Grant only became aware of the importance of the GM position sometime in the mid-2000's exactly in the middle of the shift in strategy towards player development and shrinking budgets.

I accept your explanation that Pablo, Posey, Belt, Crawford, Panik, Brown are a result of an organizational and financial commitment to scouting and development, but there is some merit to the idea that Sabean has learned from the Edgardo Alfonso, Armando Benitez, Aubrey Huff type signings too.

Not really - not in light of Sabean's previous track record of bringing in solid players.

In sum, I don't see it as Grant "pulling it out of his ass." I think there's a healthy dose of truth to his hypothesis that Sabean is getting better at his job.

I don't buy that at all. Of course it has some allure, but it's purely a petitio principii argument.

In addition, there is a good chunk of the results to be explained by simply spending money on scouting as well.

Of course, but Grant missed it. I pointed this out years ago to Tito, i.e. that it was time to get on board with Sabean.

 

[SF11704]

IMHO it is very easy for a sportswriter to look back into the past and evaluate the good things/bad things that were done by a GM. You have a result that you can place a value on. Any job role that sit in a position of 'evaluation' of talent has to feel like they are somewhat between a rock and a hard place. If they do well they are/were declared lucky. If they do poorly it's because they are 'flawed'. Predictive modeling is not an easy thing to do. If it was, then all teams would be stacked with talent and at every level of the organization. I can't be sure but I thought during the Bondsian era we had two players taking in about 40% of total payroll (Bonds and Schmidt). As good as they were we still had 8 position players to field plus 3 other decent SPs and a pen. Not an easy task to fillout the remainder of the roster on very limited funds. I think you can only get the best you can get for the money you have available. I also think we were very much in the 'let's get Barry a ring' mode. We were trying to surround him with veterans and also had a very limited cash flow. Still think that's why we had a somewhat decent team but never one that could go all the way. Hard to do with vets that are a little past thier prime.

 

[msgkings322]

IMHO it is very easy for a sportswriter to look back into the past and evaluate the good things/bad things that were done by a GM. You have a result that you can place a value on. Any job role that sit in a position of 'evaluation' of talent has to feel like they are somewhat between a rock and a hard place. If they do well they are/were declared lucky. If they do poorly it's because they are 'flawed'. Predictive modeling is not an easy thing to do. If it was, then all teams would be stacked with talent and at every level of the organization. I can't be sure but I thought during the Bondsian era we had two players taking in about 40% of total payroll (Bonds and Schmidt). As good as they were we still had 8 position players to field plus 3 other decent SPs and a pen. Not an easy task to fillout the remainder of the roster on very limited funds. I think you can only get the best you can get for the money you have available. I also think we were very much in the 'let's get Barry a ring' mode. We were trying to surround him with veterans and also had a very limited cash flow. Still think that's why we had a somewhat decent team but never one that could go all the way. Hard to do with vets that are a little past thier prime.

This, this, a thousand times this!

Add in the fact that we evaluators of GMs (Grant, gp, Ray Ratto, all of us) don't have even close to all the facts (conversations with other GMs, with our owners, with medical evaluators, with the players and their agents...), I think it's pretty much an impossible exercise to really finely judge ANY general manager.

At best you can say this guy is pretty good or that guy sucks, and even then you can't really authoritatively be 'right' or 'wrong'. IMO gp is getting too intense about the topic. Grant is too. It's part of (a certain kind of) fandom to yak about this stuff, but if you take an honest look you realize we don't really know what moves Sabean did well or poorly based on the info he had at the time he made them.. All you can honestly say about him is he's a pretty good GM, because he's been there a long time and had a lot of success especially recently. That's all.

 

[gp956]

This, this, a thousand times this!

Add in the fact that we evaluators of GMs (Grant, gp, Ray Ratto, all of us) don't have even close to all the facts (conversations with other GMs, with our owners, with medical evaluators, with the players and their agents...), I think it's pretty much an impossible exercise to really finely judge ANY general manager.

At best you can say this guy is pretty good or that guy sucks, and even then you can't really authoritatively be 'right' or 'wrong'. IMO gp is getting too intense about the topic. Grant is too. It's part of (a certain kind of) fandom to yak about this stuff, but if you take an honest look you realize we don't really know what moves Sabean did well or poorly based on the info he had at the time he made them.. All you can honestly say about him is he's a pretty good GM, because he's been there a long time and had a lot of success especially recently. That's all.

Jesus

I didn't "evaluate" Sabean in any of my posts.

 

[msgkings322]

Jesus

I didn't "evaluate" Sabean in any of my posts.

back atcha

You were evaluating others' evaluations of Sabean then.

 

[gp956]

back atcha

You were evaluating others' evaluations of Sabean then.

So...do you think I have enough "information" to critique's Grant's evaluation? I'm mean, do I really need to have complete knowledge of Sabean's situation to point out the obvious errors in Grant's analysis?

 

[msgkings322]

So...do you think I have enough "information" to critique's Grant's evaluation? I'm mean, do I really need to have complete knowledge of Sabean's situation to point out the obvious errors in Grant's analysis?

Sure, I guess so. I kind of inferred that you had your own evaluation of Sabean in mind when you were critiqueing Grant, but closer reading shows you were pretty carefully avoiding showing your own opinion.

Or maybe not, you can guess my level of interest in this splitting of hairs by my sloppiness on the subject.

Didn't mean to offend if I did, honestly, just adding to SF's point that finely detailed evaluations or critiques of GMs are fairly meaningless.

 

[filosofy29]

Here's an excerpt from his latest blog on SabeySabes:

It adds up to a flawed GM, but they're all flawed. I'm not sure if I'd consider him the best in baseball, but I know he's not close to 27th, either. Even when you consider the amazing turnover of the A's, you can make an argument that Sabean had the best year of any GM. Turning Andres Torres into Pagan, getting something of value for Jonathan Sanchez, trusting Brandon Crawford, giving up a non-prospect for Marco Scutaro, trusting Romo instead of overpaying for Jonathan Broxton … it was masterful stuff.

It's a complicated relationship between Giants fans and Brian Sabean. But I'm okay with him now. Better than okay, really. I'm so okay with him, that I'm willing to spend my rent money and buy myself World Champions gear on his behalf. It's only fair.

Doesn't sound like a guy hanging on to confirmation bias to me. Sounds like a guy who is re-assessing his opinion.

I didn't imply he was hanging on to conformation bias, but, since you bring it up, Grant is giving Sabean his due solely based on the current results, and explaining the break with his previous track record as a Sabean learning curve. That's an indication of confirmation bias, in itself, but more to my point - it's a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

Think about it for a second, and with reference to my list above, is it at all plausible that Sabean suddenly learned how to evaluate hitters 16 years into his tenure as GM? How can any intelligent objective observer make that assertion? That's just Grant pulling something out of his ass, petitio principii style, to explain a result he is wholly ill-equipped to explain.

Imhumbleo, I think Grant should have come at it with a more "real world" approach as to why he wrote what he wrote. I think some folks like Laguna Hills (almost unilaterally if I remember correctly) would seemingly always prefer the "build from within" approach and always "taking the young guy over the veteran" style of building a team.....there are others who "hate waiting for the kids" and say "hell with tomorrow, I want to win now" approach.....when, in reality, you probably need a good mix of both. I think overall, Sabean is a pretty good GM, he had some reasonable success in the "win now" mode with Barry Bonds and he's had some really good success with building through the draft. When he was in his "win now" approach and to hell with scouting, like MSG said, it's hard to know whose call that was. Was it ownership? Probably. Did Sabean agree with it? Who knows. I think Grant should have just said that he has always liked the approach of building from within and he didn't agree with a lot of the moves that Sabean made from 1997-2004 (or whenever the dates were). I think he should have issued his mea culpa in that he never thought Sabean COULD build a team from using the draft and giving guys like Posey and Belt a shot. Hypothetically, Grant may have NEVER liked Sabean's approach of building a team (during the Bonds years) even if he did have a WS Ring to back it up.

I think the mark of a good Coach/GM is to coach/build the lineup/roster to the strengths of the team/organization pov. Being able to adapt and make sure that you use all of the tools you are given to the best of your ability is much more telling than a Coach/GM who knows one way. To simplify it, I'm not sure how well Billy Beane would do in New York or how Brian Cashman would do in Oakland. I just don't have enough inside information to know.

We don't know why Bochy would EVER bench a hot Panda in favor of Arias, but we also didn't see Panda throwing up an hour before game time and looking pale. All we know is that Panda was swinging the bat well and had great numbers against the opposing SP. We don't always know that a certain player had clubhouse issues because he banged a teammates wife, etc (Major League anyone). All we know is what we are spoonfed from the media and the coaches/GM/players.....and a lot of times those are veiled truths or just outright lies.

Sorry for the novel, but in summary, I think Grant just needed to come to grips with the fact that he was overly harsh on Brian Sabean. He did this because he's a fan of the Giants and he prefers his team to be built a certain way with certain types of players.....and Sabean didn't follow those methods.....or I could have totally misread what Grant was trying to say in which case anybody who read this just wasted 5 minutes of their life that they'll never get back.

 

[gp956]

Imhumbleo, I think Grant should have come at it with a more "real world" approach as to why he wrote what he wrote. I think some folks like Laguna Hills (almost unilaterally if I remember correctly) would seemingly always prefer the "build from within" approach and always "taking the young guy over the veteran" style of building a team.....there are others who "hate waiting for the kids" and say "hell with tomorrow, I want to win now" approach.....when, in reality, you probably need a good mix of both. I think overall, Sabean is a pretty good GM, he had some reasonable success in the "win now" mode with Barry Bonds and he's had some really good success with building through the draft. When he was in his "win now" approach and to hell with scouting, like MSG said, it's hard to know whose call that was. Was it ownership? Probably. Did Sabean agree with it? Who knows. I think Grant should have just said that he has always liked the approach of building from within and he didn't agree with a lot of the moves that Sabean made from 1997-2004 (or whenever the dates were). I think he should have issued his mea culpa in that he never thought Sabean COULD build a team from using the draft and giving guys like Posey and Belt a shot. Hypothetically, Grant may have NEVER liked Sabean's approach of building a team (during the Bonds years) even if he did have a WS Ring to back it up.

I think the mark of a good Coach/GM is to coach/build the lineup/roster to the strengths of the team/organization pov. Being able to adapt and make sure that you use all of the tools you are given to the best of your ability is much more telling than a Coach/GM who knows one way. To simplify it, I'm not sure how well Billy Beane would do in New York or how Brian Cashman would do in Oakland. I just don't have enough inside information to know.

We don't know why Bochy would EVER bench a hot Panda in favor of Arias, but we also didn't see Panda throwing up an hour before game time and looking pale. All we know is that Panda was swinging the bat well and had great numbers against the opposing SP. We don't always know that a certain player had clubhouse issues because he banged a teammates wife, etc (Major League anyone). All we know is what we are spoonfed from the media and the coaches/GM/players.....and a lot of times those are veiled truths or just outright lies.

Sorry for the novel, but in summary, I think Grant just needed to come to grips with the fact that he was overly harsh on Brian Sabean. He did this because he's a fan of the Giants and he prefers his team to be built a certain way with certain types of players.....and Sabean didn't follow those methods.....or I could have totally misread what Grant was trying to say in which case anybody who read this just wasted 5 minutes of their life that they'll never get back.

You know....the link in the first post is to a fan post written by an infrequent poster at McC. Not to anything Grant wrote. As far as I can tell, Grant has never issued a mea culpa - and from the comments I linked from Baseball Prospectus, he probably won't.

 

[filosofy29]

You know....the link in the first post is to a fan post written by an infrequent poster at McC. Not to anything Grant wrote. As far as I can tell, Grant has never issued a mea culpa - and from the comments I linked from Baseball Prospectus, he probably won't.

Yup, the first post was by somebody I've never "heard of"/read, but that's understandable as I don't frequent the site. That's why I was quoting you and tz. I thought/assumed he (Grant) was saying my bad as well as the other guy and that's why you guys followed with your discussion. I didn't bother to go to the site to read the whole article by Grant.