31 minutes ago, Briro2021 said:

Yes it does and you can link a chart or whatever that is claiming anything that fits your agenda.  I have no need for it.

A chart? I'll trust the Cornell University study, among others if you'd like me to link those as well, done over your personal beliefs. I have no agenda.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

"It is very well known that intelligence or talent exhibit a Gaussian distribution among the population, whereas the distribution of wealth - considered a proxy of success - follows typically a power law (Pareto law). Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale, and the scale invariant distribution of outputs, suggests that some hidden ingredient is at work behind the scenes......  In this paper, with the help of a very simple agent-based model, we suggest that such an ingredient is just randomness. In particular, we show that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals."

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

Dang it. Would’ve paid for his flight to interview!

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

So that settles it; don't spend money, because it's not like money spent directly correlates to success over the past 20 years of the game.

No. But just because you spend money doesn't mean it will work either. That's why complaining about spending money to spend money doesn't help. It's not about spending the money its spending on the appropriate players and for the most part they no much more about the players than we do.

33 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

A chart? I'll trust the Cornell University study, among others if you'd like me to link those as well, done over your personal beliefs. I have no agenda.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

"It is very well known that intelligence or talent exhibit a Gaussian distribution among the population, whereas the distribution of wealth - considered a proxy of success - follows typically a power law (Pareto law). Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale, and the scale invariant distribution of outputs, suggests that some hidden ingredient is at work behind the scenes......  In this paper, with the help of a very simple agent-based model, we suggest that such an ingredient is just randomness. In particular, we show that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals."

I'll leave it at that.

12 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I'll leave it at that.

OK Ptatc, you got me there; my agenda is to show the average man that they aren't lesser than the wealthy people who take advantage of them and have further degraded their worth by not properly compensating them for the work they do; for example, production is up 60% per employee since 1978 but wages are up a meager 3-4% after inflation. So my agenda is absolutely to educate on inequality and the causes of it, and express the fact that it's not talent or knowledge that separates the wealthy; it's money that they use to lobby away workers rights (Prop 22 for example) and beyond. Just as medicine is your life work, you could argue this is mine. 

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

14 minutes ago, ptatc said:

No. But just because you spend money doesn't mean it will work either. That's why complaining about spending money to spend money doesn't help. It's not about spending the money its spending on the appropriate players and for the most part they no much more about the players than we do.

No, but just in anything in life you should do what gives you the best opportunity to be successful. Spending big money is a fundamental part of the success curve in MLB.

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

4 hours ago, ptatc said:

I believe that's only for a lateral move. The Phillies could call him VP of baseball operations and not need permission.

Senior Vice-President and General Manager is RH current title.  Sounds very lateral to me.

14 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No, but just in anything in life you should do what gives you the best opportunity to be successful. Spending big money is a fundamental part of the success curve in MLB.

I don't necessarily agree. Every year there are lower payroll teams and every year there are plenty of big payroll teams that don't get in the playoffs and win. Does it help yes, i don't think it is fundamental though. 

6 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Senior Vice-President and General Manager is RH current title.  Sounds very lateral to me.

didn't realize that was his title. I'm sure that's why ha has that title. Guess they would need to offer him a Grand Poobah title or something to circumvent any block by JR. 

Just now, ptatc said:

didn't realize that was his title. I'm sure that's why ha has that title. Guess they would need to offer him a Grand Poobah title or something to circumvent any block by JR. 

Need to see the pay grade of each position to know for sure.

20 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

OK Ptatc, you got me there; my agenda is to show the average man that they aren't lesser than the wealthy people who take advantage of them and have further degraded their worth by not properly compensating them for the work they do; for example, production is up 60% per employee since 1978 but wages are up a meager 3-4% after inflation. So my agenda is absolutely to educate on inequality and the causes of it, and express the fact that it's not talent or knowledge that separates the wealthy; it's money that they use to lobby away workers rights (Prop 22 for example) and beyond. Just as medicine is your life work, you could argue this is mine. 

Some are, some aren't when it comes to intelligence (that was the topic). Some people are just naturally smarter than others. Some have the drive to succeed, some don't. That's the beauty of being different. Generalizing either group is incorrect.

2 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Need to see the pay grade of each position to know for sure.

True, but I still think with the turnover in these positions, job security has to rank as one of the higher qualities.

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Some are, some aren't when it comes to intelligence (that was the topic). Some people are just naturally smarter than others. Some have the drive to succeed, some don't. That's the beauty of being different. Generalizing either group is incorrect.

Sure, and "naturally" smarter people are not "naturally" wealthier; that was the basis of the study. There are plenty of poor people who are incredibly intelligent and there are plenty of dumb fucks who have endless amounts of money.

 

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I don't necessarily agree. Every year there are lower payroll teams and every year there are plenty of big payroll teams that don't get in the playoffs and win. Does it help yes, i don't think it is fundamental though. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/

You can disagree, but cash buys wins:

1 hour ago, Rowand44 said:

Yikes.

Yikes is right if you dont know this lol

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Sure, and "naturally" smarter people are not "naturally" wealthier; that was the basis of the study. There are plenty of poor people who are incredibly intelligent. 

As I said, you can't generalize either group. It's not correct to say that the wealthier are smarter but is also not correct to say that poor people are just as smart. There are some of each in both groups.

6 hours ago, ptatc said:

Why would someone leave? Job security is not an issue. He turned down many interviews when he wasn't the GM.

Why does anybody leave?  I think what is interesting as fans we just see the opportunity to win and believe that every GM should just pick the spot that gives them the best chance to win a WS. I'm not certain everyone thinks that way. Living in Chicago is different than living in Kansas City, New York, or Houston. Liking the people you work around may be important. Of course with limited jobs most people never have a choice. But I believe more people in sports look at the other things more than we think. 

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/

You can disagree, but cash buys wins:

People who have links and charts to everything are severely lacking in confidence lol.  You can LITERALLY have a link to any opinion you have. Doesnt mean a thing.  How about trying to think on your own?

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

As I said, you can't generalize either group. It's not correct to say that the wealthier are smarter but is also not correct to say that poor people are just as smart. There are some of each in both groups.

I'll post this again because I edited it and you seemed to have missed it:

Edit: Listen, I know the theme of soxtalk of late is to pile on and pretend that I act like an expert everywhere; because I respond on topics by which I'm knowledgeable on and avoid topics of which I'm not, but I merely responded to a poster who said "rich people are more intelligent than non-rich people." I refuted that with a study, and then you said I was generalizing. That's nonsense; I was refuting a generalized view from another poster.

Just now, Briro2021 said:

People who have links and charts to everything are severely lacking in confidence lol.  You can LITERALLY have a link to any opinion you have. Doesnt mean a thing.  How about trying to think on your own?

I'm sorry that I use data to actually substantiate my positions; I don't enjoy speaking from places of ignorance and when I do I'm always happy to be called on it. 

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'm sorry that I use data to actually substantiate my positions; I don't enjoy speaking from places of ignorance and when I do I'm always happy to be called on it. 

LOL "data" is just as likely to be false.  Again, try thinking on your own.

1 minute ago, Briro2021 said:

LOL "data" is just as likely to be false.  Again, try thinking on your own.

How is data false? 

That is a graph of payrolls and wins. There is nothing nebulous about that data.

"Try thinking on your own" literally just means ignore evidence, believe what you want. I came to my conclusions based on my thoughts, plus substantiated evidence. That's how positions are justified in my world. I can't just have opinions without areas of support.

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/

You can disagree, but cash buys wins:

Sure as an average as you show. This is the same issue with taking the average performance of a season by a player and applying it to the post season. Using an average over time is a misleading statistic. Doesn't mean its fundamental. It gives a team a better chance no doubt. However, there are always teams with lower payrolls that do well.

 

6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Why does anybody leave?  I think what is interesting as fans we just see the opportunity to win and believe that every GM should just pick the spot that gives them the best chance to win a WS. I'm not certain everyone thinks that way. Living in Chicago is different than living in Kansas City, New York, or Houston. Liking the people you work around may be important. Of course with limited jobs most people never have a choice. But I believe more people in sports look at the other things more than we think. 

Agreed. While I'm sure they would love to win the WS. It is their job and there are many other factors that apply.

6 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Sure as an average as you show. This is the same issue with taking the average performance of a season by a player and applying it to the post season. Using an average over time is a misleading statistic. Doesn't mean its fundamental. It gives a team a better chance no doubt. However, there are always teams with lower payrolls that do well.

 

How is it misleading to present information that very much shows that the more money you spend, the more wins you are likely to have. 

The low payroll teams that do well are the exception to the rule, they are not the rule in itself. They are lauded because they "overcome" the deficit they are put in at the beginning of the year.

The fact is, in baseball, if you spend more money, you are more likely to win. There's really no refuting that. 

Outliers exist in all walks of life; in every statistical set that exists. Just because Mike Trout was drafted with the 25th pick in the draft doesn't mean teams should trade the #1 overall pick every year for the 25th pick. Spending money puts you in a better position to succeed; just as drafting #1 puts you in a better position than drafting #25. 

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run