Manocad wrote:So since 110 wins has only been achieved six times in MLB history, you're saying that you can assemble and coach a better team than every other organization/coach in the history of MLB save for six.
Yeah, that's believable.
You act like as if that's a giant population. For one, the Tigers spend near the top of the list in payroll each year, so only a small number of teams even have the financial means to build a powerhouse team. Second, I never said I could take any team at any time and turn them into a 110 winner overnight, so I don't know many historical opportunities are eligible to do that in a short time frame. But it's easy when you have an owner willing to spend and a young core of superstar players that you can bank on in the field or as trade options. We happen to have a good nucleus and all of the right ingredients to qualify for building a powerhouse team. You can't win that big on minimum salaries.
So over the history of MLB there hasn't been nearly as many candidates to attempt such a feast as you imply with your statement. The key to my strategy is I wouldn't be copying any of those other strategies that failed to reach 110 wins in a season. Anybody can win less than 110 games per year, that's easy, but what I'm talking about is invoking a strategy set that I've never seen any other team attempt. I have never seen any team in any year in baseball history that had even attempted to build and lockdown a powerhouse team. There's a lot of reasons to explain why they do things the way they do, but for example if the Tigers best move was to trade Verlander or Cabrera, well many GMs would never look at those moves because they are afraid of the social fallout from trading a legendary player that is a fan favorite. We could explore 10 different explanations for why teams so rarely can eclipse a 110 win total, but either way the reasons that explain how each failed don't apply to me if I have a valid plan to avoid those particular reasons.
I see no logic in determining the likelihood of my success based upon what everybody else does that doesn't understand the game at my level, by game I mean the complete game of baseball from roster design and management including the tactics of the game. The game to me isn't playing a baseball game, or scouting a player, or giving a hitting lesson, it's the comprehensive GM role and responsibility to build an uber-dominant team, and that's what I'm the best in the world at and you can't judge me at that without having comparable peers that share my baseball philosophy and approach. Show me a GM that uses my ideas and my strategies for building a team then you will see how easy it is to eclipse 110 wins in a season. Whether you believe me or not that's irrelevant so I don't really see what difference it makes. Nobody believes me nor have I made any irrefutable case to prove as otherwise, so to suggest that you don't believe me goes without saying and would naturally be assumed.
