Tigers trade Sizemore for Purcey

[TSE]

I wonder why they drafted Sizemore. I wonder if they said to themselves, hey this might be a good pick, cause several years later we might need an infielder, and if he pans out then we can fill a need really cheap with this guy. So here we are in the present and brink of finding out if Sizemore's career lifts off or stalls, and what is our team's position now, that we no longer need an infielder for the present or future? Another halfway decision that is turned around at it's own halfway point, and for seemingly no purpose other than to add to our relatively infinite pile of mediocre pitchers.

[chrbal]

probably.

[kellmellus50]

David Purcey
sent for asignment now what happened since than did he clear wavers? are the tigers trying to find a trade partner?

[TSE]

You got me on trying to guess what the Tigers are doing.

[chrbal]

Nothing official, but he would probably take a minor league assignment at Toledo. Even with the high demand of lefty relievers, i can't see any team bringing him in.

[TSE]

What a waste. And now DD is extended for 4 years and Leyland for an extra one. UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE

There is no justice in baseball.

[chrbal]

Because of David Purcey? is that what you think?

[TSE]

Because of David Purcey? is that what you think?

No, literally THOUSANDS of mistakes that DD and Leyland have made since they've been here. Tons of catastrophic terrible trades (along with the failure of seeking out POSITIVE TRADES that we have been looking for EVERY YEAR) are the key brunt of the reason, oh and the extremely large number of multi-million dollar contracts that were wasted on unqualified options, but on a technical level they have made gargantuan quantities of mistakes, and as a sum those minor mistakes add up to a massive number of lost games on their own, and they continue to repeat those mistakes day in and day out.

[RustInPeace]

Because of David Purcey? is that what you think?

No, literally THOUSANDS of mistakes that DD and Leyland have made since they've been here.

LITERALLY thousands of mistakes

[TSE]

? Is that a question or just an echo?

Well it's a matter of perspective to count mistakes. I count every game that Lamont suit up for 3B as a mistake, and that's 2 mistakes, 1 for both the manager and for the GM that allow it to happen. Those 2 guys are separate individuals that each have an individual responsibility, and it's a different assessment to the team depending on whether both junctures are blown versus just one. You wouldn't count only 1 strikeout per game as relevant if 10 guys strikeout, cause each one in itself is a quantity that one specific person is responsible for in that particular juncture of time, and every strikeout counts against us, even though categorically it's always the same thing. Leyland and DD are just essentially other players for us, with private personal sets of decisions that they can either get a hit on, or make an out. And they need to be evaluated independently under some metrics and examination processes, and then they need to be examined together under other lenses.

Every game Lamont fails to prove that he is a qualified coach, so every game is another mini-test of which he'll likely never fill that void, so every game that comes up is a continuous mistake. So if Leyland and DD have him for 1 year, 162 games, that's a total of 320 mistakes that our human reps have made. Then you factor in all the other miscellaneous things that are inexcusable mistakes from a gameday tactical point, and you have gargantuan numbers. But that's why I delineated that despite the presence of literally THOUSANDS of bad items, it's the trades and the contracts in the amount of 2 dozen or less that hurt us the most. You just can't forget about those other things, because we have so many areas we fail in, and so many piles of mistakes, that collectively all those things can beat out the negative value of our bad trades and contracts. It just has to be looked at through a dynamic lens, because these are radically different types of constructs that affect the team, and to analyze them for purposes of fixing them requires a unique look at not only the individual items, but the piles, and they need to be blended together for a proper evaluation of the GM or Manager depending on who you're examining.

[kellmellus50]

Tigers' David Purcey clears waivers, is outrighted to Triple-A Toledo

Purcey, Pauley, what's the difference? None that I can see so far! unless your a mobster.

[TSE]

Yeah they are the same basically, both illogical players that do nothing other than eat up our future prospects, some of which could be HOFers. Purcey and Pauley have no shot at that, but our prospects we gave up do. Some chance is better than no chance, plus they also have chances to hit in at many other levels between HOF and whatever the mobster boys levels turn out to be. And they are all freeroll players that can give great value or trading assets down the road. The advantage to time in terms of cycling is also a big part of it, cause if you hit enough value you can then create cycles of refueling for the long-term, all of that has to be factored in, and without enough aggregate franchise resource value, those bonus arenas (which are the Holy Grail of baseball mngmt) to play in don't even exist.

If you do everything right, it's actually possible to build a 150 win baseball team, that can consistently hit close to that range or nearby almost uber-impressive ranges from year to year. But you can't mess up on your core logic even the faintest amount. And you still have to have some luck on your side, but nevertheless it is practical to achieve that status of quality and it's only possible because all the other teams mismanage so poorly that they allow that theoretical opportunity to exist. I know this for a fact cause I did my homework and with the proper understanding of game theory and how baseball science works. It's first come first serve and then the dynamics change beyond that, but the first-mover can lock into a perpetual Utopian structure. All you need is an owner that is willing to spend the money for it, and we have that already.

[chrbal]

If you do everything right, it's actually possible to build a 150 win baseball team, that can consistently hit close to that range or nearby almost uber-impressive ranges from year to year. But you can't mess up on your core logic even the faintest amount. And you still have to have some luck on your side, but nevertheless it is practical to achieve that status of quality and it's only possible because all the other teams mismanage so poorly that they allow that theoretical opportunity to exist. I know this for a fact cause I did my homework and with the proper understanding of game theory and how baseball science works. It's first come first serve and then the dynamics change beyond that, but the first-mover can lock into a perpetual Utopian structure. All you need is an owner that is willing to spend the money for it, and we have that already.

Just so I know, do you write for theonion.com?

No team could/would ever go 150-12. Its impossible.

You can build really awful teams, thats not that hard. Two of this states pro franchises have even proven that. You force not ready players to play, players that don't fit the system in key roles, and just lack the needed talent. You can't build a team that good that they would win over 90% of the games, too many factors would be working against you.

[TSE]

You can build really awful teams, thats not that hard. Two of this states pro franchises have even proven that. You force not ready players to play, players that don't fit the system in key roles, and just lack the needed talent. You can't build a team that good that they would win over 90% of the games, too many factors would be working against you.

What factors are you talking about that I haven't accounted for?

[ElectricMayhem]

How about competition? Let's say all the other teams also bring in someone whose genius is equal to your own (hypothetically speaking, of course.....I'm not saying there are actually 30 people in the world who could match your brilliance).

With 30 masterminds controlling the teams and using your patented formulas for 150 win seasons, will everyone be winning games at a 90% clip? Will teams be so good that both teams come out winners after the game?

[TSE]

That's a different situation than what we have in the present, and it's going to be hard for 1 team to find somebody to match me as nobody has done it yet, so to think all of them could do it is a little far fetched. It's not that it is impossible, it's that the owners of the teams are the only 30 people in the world that get to decide who runs the teams, and NONE of those guys would ever figure it out for quite a long time, and many still would choose to do things their way and the wrong way still. God himself could come down and explain how baseball works and some of them would still get confused, these are old people that have compromised logic. They actually believe they earn all the money they make and have all kinds of screwy logic with how they view the world and operate their lives.

And it wouldn't be hard, there are plenty of geniuses to go around, but very few of them spend time trying to crack the code of baseball, and there's tons of famous people who have tried (i.e. the Bill James guys etc that people think of as the experts, whom of which I don't think could hold my calculator's pocket protector, better than saying jock strap right? lol); none of them have come close from my POV.

There is not one named person on the planet that has revealed themselves to understand the game of baseball better than me, that doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means that none of them are famous or employed presently. You could give me a few dozen people that love sports/games and have an IQ over 120, and that's about all you would need for me to teach people how to be a GM of at least a reasonably comparable skill. I could probably find at least 100,000 people that live in this country alone that would be able to learn and duplicate my strategies to a minimum benchmark that I wouldn't complain about as a constituent of those teams. But we only need 30, so to weed it down to the best and the smartest 30 that exist, I would imagine I could train those super elite guys, or gals, in such a way that some of them would likely be smart enough to become even better than me.

My contention is based upon the reality as it stands, if you modify the givens and the premises that exist in order to counter my strategy then that's fine, however it would still be possible to win 150 games, as it is always theoretically possible. But if all 30 teams were run by my clones, even I wouldn't be able to sniff 150 wins, that would become practically impossible for all intents and purposes as it relates to your question. There is one caveat though, as there is a sickly advantageous first-mover advantage, so if you were to duplicate me exactly for purposes of trying to beat my original self as the first team that had a 5 year head start, it would take my duplicate selves a long time to bring things back to order, as my lead time advantage would make it impossible for them to stop be instantaneously, it would take many years before even 29 copies of God himself could undermine my success, as no matter how smart you are, there is a finite level of talent and resources and the most logical ones I would have an already cemented healthy share that makes it impossible for the other 29 teams to all match as they would be dividing it equally. This is of course assuming God doesn't actually know the future, he has to play fair and do the best he can with the info that is available to him and all future events are up to chance and fate the same as they are for me.

But if we started off with 30 clones of myself without getting that 5 year head start, well with that what you would have is a distribution slightly similar to what you see now, except the parity would be much tighter as some of the reject teams would be able to stave off complete reject status to raise the level of the worst possible floor, and no team could squash another on the high end as the vice versa to that, so the range would get much tighter and be great for the sport because of the uber-parity. All of the best teams would surface each year moreso to random luck and managerial skill of which there would still be some disparity, because managers are still one level removed from myself, and no matter how well I train a Manager to do what I want, I can't have the same 100% certainty over their actions that I can have over myself as the GM for every team.

It was a great question to ask, tbh I didn't expect you to fire off a brilliant question, but that was the right logic to structure your question for purposes of following up along the lines we were talking, so kudos to you for that.

[RustInPeace]

You should take your vast wisdom and knowledge of baseball to a community that equals that of yours. Have you tried mlive?

[TSE]

I'm familiar with it and sometimes read articles on there, but nope haven't tried to chat there.

[kellmellus50]

Monday was the deadline by which to sign draft picks before losing their rights. The Tigers ultimately agreed to terms with 33 of their 49 picks, including the top 19.

[Manocad]

You should take your vast wisdom and knowledge of baseball to a community that equals that of yours. Have you tried mlive?

I'm familiar with it and sometimes read articles on there, but nope haven't tried to chat there.

Whoosh!