# MLB Spring Training 2009 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405 "2009-02-11T18:51:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/121 "2009-03-06T21:56:54Z")
Elvis, I’m dropping this - but I want to assure you I had no hidden motive in my questioning. I’m honestly looking to whether or not such a measurement would be worth looking at, and what it would take to make that measurement valid. I was not trying to set up a gotcha, or anything of the sort (since I said from the outset I wasn’t interested in running the numbers - so how could I have?). Have a good weekend. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/122 "2009-03-06T22:04:12Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So James was just one of many guys, some of whom had actually watched Ortiz play and whose opinions thereby carried some actual weight, who offered an opinion about him. Thanks for the support. Considering your whole point appeared to be that James was imaterial to the decision to sign Ortiz, i don’t see how my actual evidence supports your unsubstantiated contentions. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Mnookin, btw, isn’t even on the regular Red Sox beat… Really? That’s what you gonna go with here? The guy spent months and months with a level of access far exceeding that of the regular Red Sox beat reporters, and you’re going to go with the sporting equivalent of the “No true Scotsman” argument? Staggering. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I can provide other cites for Pedro’s lobbying from reporters who do and who were there if you insist, but frankly you’d have to convince me it’s worth the effort. I’d love to see those cites. But, of course, only if you think it’s worth the effort. :rolleyes: Anyway, the question is not whether Martinez lobbied for Ortiz. For all i know, Martinez might have spent every afternoon banging on Epstein’s office door and begging with him to sign Ortiz. You said, specifically: > [@](#): > > You do realize, I hope, that the Sox brought Ortiz in after his release in MN **because of lobbying by Pedro Martinez** , and then only as a backup for Jeremy Giambi at 1B. So, if you think it’s worth the effort to find some cites, you not only have to show that Martinez lobbied, but that his lobbying was the reason for Ortiz’s signing. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The problem with James personally (as if that mattered) isn’t, btw, that he doesn’t think unquantifiables or intangibles matter, it’s that he has nothing to offer there to help guide the baseball people. He doesn’t follow the game _on the field_ enough to say anything as useful as the career scouts, development people, or maybe even serious fans do. This is, perhaps, one of the most astounding claims i’ve ever seen on a messageboard, anywhere, on any topic. Not only is James on the payroll of the most successful baseball franchise of the past five years or so, that franchise’s very success coincides almost precisely with James’ presence. Furthermore, i’ve provided evidence that he is specifically sought out by the Red Sox management when making decisions about which players to buy, and that he was an integral part of the decision to buy one of the most important players in Boston’s recent championships, a purchase that is widely considered in MLB to have been a steal for the Red Sox and one of the smartest buys in recent baseball history. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The problem with too many of his acolytes, some of whom have posted right here, is that they think those things not only don’t matter but don’t even exist. Again you misrepresent. Not a single person has said those things don’t exist, or even that they don’t matter. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Even many who do are often much less interested in discussing them than in discussing what they \*can \*see and quantify. They miss the heart of what makes fanship so much fun. It’s sad, really. What makes fanship so much fun for **ElvisL1ves** , apparently, is when everyone else agrees with precisely everything he says, and doesn’t introduce issues that he’s decided are irrelevant. And what makes it even more fun is to call those people threadshitters, and misrepresent their arguments. I’m done with you in this, and in any other baseball thread. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/123 "2009-03-06T22:12:46Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I’m honestly looking to whether or not such a measurement would be worth looking at, and what it would take to make that measurement valid. But you haven’t offered anything that has enough data behind it to be credible _even statistically_. I’ve said that enough times by now. That failure is not mine; it’s just evidence that numbers’ usefulness is far more limited than some “fans” care to admit. You do, however, seem to discount all the testimony from Boston’s pitchers, manager, and coaches about the intangibles and unquantifiables that, I’m glad to see, you seem to agree do exist and do matter. That does puzzle me. > [@](#): > > Have a good weekend. Likewise. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/124 "2009-03-06T22:20:52Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Considering your whole point appeared to be that James was imaterial to the decision to sign Ortiz Scroll back to find the original statement that started this discussion. You will probably be surprised. > [@](#): > > The guy spent months and months with a level of access far exceeding that of the regular Red Sox beat reporters Su-u-ure 😃 > [@](#): > > Anyway, the question is not whether Martinez lobbied for Ortiz. Now that you know it’s true, it isn’t the question anymore, huh? 😃 > [@](#): > > Not only is James on the payroll of the most successful baseball franchise of the past five years or so, that franchise’s very success coincides almost precisely with James’ presence. That’s the _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. The \*entire organization \*changed at the same time as the ownership did, ya know. But do go on. > [@](#): > > he was an integral part of the decision Quite a far cry from the claim that it was _all his doing_, huh? 😃 > [@](#): > > Not a single person has said those things don’t exist, or even that they don’t matter. Sure have. As I said, scroll up. > [@](#): > > What makes fanship so much fun for **ElvisL1ves** , apparently, is when everyone else agrees with precisely everything he says :rolleyes: Kids these days … ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/125 "2009-03-06T22:44:04Z")
I was going to leave it there, but i can’t let your outright lies and deliberate misrepresentations go unchallenged. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Now that you know it’s true, it isn’t the question anymore, huh? 😃 You’re lying. Neither i, nor anyone else, ever claimed that Pedro Martinez didn’t lobby for David Ortiz. The only person to make any claim about Pedro Martinez in this thread is you, when you said (these are your words): > [@](#): > > You do realize, I hope, that the Sox brought Ortiz in after his release in MN **because of lobbying by Pedro Martinez** , and then only as a backup for Jeremy Giambi at 1B. You made the specific claim that the reason the Red Sox bought Ortiz was Martinez’s lobbying. The fact that Martinez lobbied does not mean that this lobbying was the reason for Boston’s decision to sign Ortiz. So, i’ll say it again, to be clear: i have no trouble believing that Martinez lobbied for Ortiz. But if you’re making the claim that it was this lobbying that was the sole (or even the main) reason for Boston choosing to sign Ortiz, you need to show some evidence. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s the _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. The \*entire organization \*changed at the same time as the ownership did, ya know. Yes, i do know that. But James’ presence during Boston’s successful run was only part of my argument, and you dishonestly left out the main part, which was the direct evidence i showed you that Epstein and others within the organization specifically rely on James’ advice when making personnel decisions. He’s not the only person they talk to—and i never claimed he was—but to argue that he has nothing to tell the baseball people in Boston is sheer fantasy on your part, complete and mystifying irrationality. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Quite a far cry from the claim that it was _all his doing_, huh? 😃 Another outright lie. Show me one person, just one, in this thread who has claimed that Ortiz’s signigng was solely due to James. Here’s the post by **HoboStew** that first brought up the James/Ortiz issue in this thread: > [@HoboStew](#): > > Yes, if by occasional interesting insight you mean things like telling ownership to grab Ortiz, who was only one of the single most important reasons for your recent success. **HoboStew** specifically states that James “told ownership to grab Ortiz,” which is corroborated by the sections i quoted from Mnookin’s book. Nowhere did **HoboStew** ever say that Ortiz’s signing was “all [James’s] doing.” Nor did i ever say that. That claim is nothing but the product of your fevered imagination. If you want to disagree about James and about stats, that’s fine. But please stop lying about what other people have said. It’s very unbecoming of you. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/126 "2009-03-06T22:48:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But you haven’t offered anything that has enough data behind it to be credible _even statistically_. I’ve said that enough times by now. Is 328 games not enough? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > You do, however, seem to discount all the testimony from Boston’s pitchers, manager, and coaches about the intangibles and unquantifiables that, I’m glad to see, you seem to agree do exist and do matter. That does puzzle me. But you haven’t mentioned those! Christ, man - I don’t live in Boston. I grew up in Kansas City a Royals fan, and have been in Indiana for 10 years - have you been to Indiana? Yes, ESPN fellates Boston as much as they possibly can, but they aren’t showing clips of Kyle Snyder’s praise of how he couldn’t have done it without 'Tek. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/127 "2009-03-06T22:49:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Don’t make that demand to someone contradicting you unless you’re sure of your own facts. It \*is \*tantamount to accusing the other person of making shit up. In a thread that’s supposed to be a fun talk about a fun pastime, that is highly inappropriate. Maybe where you live. Where I’m from asking people to back up claims they make with facts is totally appropriate. > [@](#): > > We’re still waiting for your \*own \*cite from Bill James, btw. :dubious: Haven’t had much chance to look. Deadline on tuesday has made work pretty hectic. I’ll have some time on the weekend to look for it. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/128 "2009-03-07T21:21:27Z")
Well I can’t seem to dig up the article. The best I could find was a [video (which is no longer available)](http://blog.masslive.com/redsoxmonster/2008/03/from_night_watchman_to_stat_wa.html) of an interview with him last year (which is roughly when I remember reading the article). It says [QUOTE=60 Minutes] Neither the Red Sox nor James will reveal specific decisions based on James’ input, but it is widely accepted that it was James who urged them to sign a jolly giant named David Ortiz. [/QUOTE] So I am not just pulling this out of my ass. Of course, James denies taking full credit for the Ortiz signing, saying everyone liked him, but it is possible that modesty is at play there. And thanks for the legwork on your end, **mhendo**. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405/129 "2009-03-08T19:27:11Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I was going to leave it there, but i can’t let your outright lies and deliberate misrepresentations go unchallenged.You’re lying. Check which forum you’re in, kid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-spring-training-2009/485405.md?page=6)