IBC

Discussing baseball is fine, but how often do the most dominant personalities win out?

It's human psychology. "If I yell the loudest, my point is more prudent".

I think the purpose of the suggestion is to make sure we're having logical and unbiased decisions when these votes are cast.

Rockies wrote:Discussing baseball is fine, but how often do the most dominant personalities win out?

It's human psychology. "If I yell the loudest, my point is more prudent".

I think the purpose of the suggestion is to make sure we're having logical and unbiased decisions when these votes are cast.

If somebody is swayed because of a stat they didn't bother to look up but another GM did, isn't that worth it rather than having somebody vote lazily?

That's why we include stats in the presented information

RedSox wrote:That's why we include stats in the presented information

I hope you use every stat in the book, then. Including 3 year splits, trends, scouting reports for prospects, etc...

There's a limit to what is reasonable to include. It's not essential to list every stat because not every GM is going to value every stat. When evaluating a trade, they're going to look at the ones THEY value when they make the decision, whether that's OPS, PECOTA, Zips, MLVR, Winshares, VORP, ERA, pERA, EqERA, WHIP, BA's rankings, BP's rankings, Sickels' rankings, etc. The members of the league are intelligent and capable enough to make up their own minds. A simple presentation of each side gives everyone a view of where each side is coming from, then you let them make up their own mind, rather than trying to CONVINCE them or shout the other side down.
Those 'discussions' quickly turn into personal arguments and attacks. It's all well and good to say 'just lock the thread then' but by that point, someone has already gotten personal and feels the need to be able to fire back so they start a new thread somewhere.
This system has worked MUCH better than any prior method we've used. Going back to an older method that has resulted in more arguments and personal attacks is illogical, counter-intuitive and, IMO, would be a huge mistake. Even Dan, with his objections today, wasn't objecting to the system, he was pissed because he lost the comment that he wanted to use in the official argument for opposing the trade. the system as it is WORKS. It's fair and it works well. Screwing with it makes no sense.

OK. I still disagree with this entire premise that you cannot discuss a trade. Let's suck all the personality of the league all at once.

I personally only use Keith Law's Top 100, and I hope to see what it has to say included in all prospect discussions going forward.

Pirates wrote:OK. I still disagree with this entire premise that you cannot discuss a trade. Let's suck all the personality of the league all at once.

I don't consider GM's going at each other's throats and quitting over arguments about trades to be 'personality'. in fact I think most GM's would like to see a lot LESS of that kind of thing and more civil discussions. Unfortunately, that isn't possible when trades come up for review, it's been shown time after time after time that they inevitably, and quickly, turn ugly.

Athletics wrote:I personally only use Keith Law's Top 100, and I hope to see what it has to say included in all prospect discussions going forward.

Damn you for outing my secret source!

Pirates wrote: I entirely disagree with this notion. What's wrong with discussion over players? If somebody is swayed because they see things in a different light than before, isn't that a good thing presenting more knowledge? I cannot see a situation where we actually discuss baseball on here is a poor one.

Whats wrong? Because all too often it explodes into something more than discussion. Want proof? Gmail is littered with 100 thread emails over crap like this. I only wish I had all the threads in my original gmail account, but I actually filled that mother fucker with 2 gigs of crap and removed all the junk.

If you want to sway somebody, do it in the proper, official channel... the side against the argument that would be presented to the league. Nothing more, nothing less. It could actually be baseball discussion instead of "you're a dick for what you said".

Is that such a bad thing?

I don't know if thats a solution, because it may make problem's worse to put it behind doors. The mob mentality goes underground... I dunno, there's not an easy solution. I understand both sides, but I think it can get a bit out of hand, as evidenced by quite a few veto's getting as heated as they have both now and in the past. This one could have been far worse, I'm sure. But is there someway to eliminate the potential for the blow up?

RedSox wrote:

Pirates wrote:OK. I still disagree with this entire premise that you cannot discuss a trade. Let's suck all the personality of the league all at once.

I don't consider GM's going at each other's throats and quitting over arguments about trades to be 'personality'. in fact I think most GM's would like to see a lot LESS of that kind of thing and more civil discussions. Unfortunately, that isn't possible when trades come up for review, it's been shown time after time after time that they inevitably, and quickly, turn ugly.

As is all the rage at sickle's minorleagueball.com

+1

My Sickels meter went off: He sucks something wretched.

He's not the greatest, not the worst either tho...

but when you're bored outta yer skull, you read everything.

Royals wrote:My Sickels meter went off: He sucks something wretched.

I read him for the same reason I read Rotoworld's prospect stuff. Every great once in a while they get lucky and turn me on to a prospect I wouldn't have picked up on otherwise.