Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Tampa Bay Rays
Toronto Blue Jays
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Kansas City Royals
Minnesota Twins
Houston Astros
LA Angels
Oakland Athleticss
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers
Atlanta Braves
Miami Marlins
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Washington Nationals
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers
Pittsburgh Pirates
St. Louis Cardinals
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco GiantsHaha, working?!?!?Originally Posted by joek
Haha, working?!?!?
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3...irosig6vx8.jpg
http://strike3forums.com/images/Mari...riners-sig.jpg
Mariners Artwork | Request a Sig
Circular logic aside, Mr Mims, you have yet to provide a single credible reason why you are, in fact, hot.
I think he meant to say that he's a tool.
"Players can't get better over time." -GiantsFanatic
Thanks, You aren't that bad yourself. We just disagree. But always remember, you can't be the best unless you win.
so who's the best?
Last year the bosux. This year, the team that wins the WS. I think that will be the YANKEES. And, who do you think is best?
At least Joke...I mean, Joek, doesn't go out and prostitute the Yanks like some people I know.
"Players can't get better over time." -GiantsFanatic
I've seen the joke for joek thing so many times, I've come to acept it as a compliment from those with opposing views, and have little to defend their position with. And thank you for the compliment.
And don't forget:
According to joek, if you challenge the validity of the WIN Method, or present an idea that contradicts it, then you :
1. "have no common sense",
2. "are non-sensical" (see #1),
3. are "just plain sucking wind",
4. posses "embarressing ethics",
5. "are incapable of comprehening it."
This gets pretty heavy, so stay with me. If I am making any claims about the WIN method that are untrue it is because, to this point, JoeK has failed to clearly lay out how the process works. I have asked JoeK on several occasions to explain the method to no avail.
The question that the WIN Method answers incorrectly is this:
Does the best team always win?
Proponents of the WIN method would say, "Yes." The fact that they won makes them the best team. This arguement is quite logical on the surface.
Skeptics of the WIN Method would say "No." (see: 1985 Villanova Wildcats, 1980 USA Olympic Men's Hockey, 1968 New York Jets, 2000 New York Yankees) I side with the skeptics and here's why:
Are the players WIN Method because the won? Or did they win becuase they are WIN Method? (you can't have it both ways)
Case 1: Players are WIN Method because they won.
In this case, Winning is the cause and WIN Method is the effect. When the method is the effect, it does not lend itself well to reproducing the same results. For example, There is fire because of oxygen. Fire is the effect, and oxygen is the cause. You cannot then conclude that where ever there is oxygen, there is fire. A number of other variables must exist for fire to occur. Likewise with the WIN method: Players will win because they are WIN method. This claim is false, demonstrated by the 2001-2004 New York Yankees. Also by the fact that a team that was not yet WIN Method (assuming case 1 is true) ended up winning.
Case 2: Players won because they are WIN Method.
Since case 1 is false, we need to know how a player becomes a WIN Method ball player. As I understand, JoeK interviews him. Regarless of playing ability, and relying only on JoeK's intellect, a player's value is determined. It seems both logical and sensical using this knowledge, that a team full of players possesing Kevin Millar's interviewing, and ball playing skills, and a staff loaded with the arms and interview skills of Derek Lowe would succeed in the major leagues. There isn't an honest soul alive that would make this claim. Instead there are several other factors that contribute to a ball player's (or a team's) success. Fortunately for JoeK, a third case exists for him to fall back on.
Case 3: Players are WIN Method because they won and they won because they are WIN Method.
Having proven that both cases 1 & 2 are independantly false, you're just chasing your tail when you make this claim.
So there you have it. This is why I, among others, think WIN Method is nothing that George Steinbrenner would pay money for.
By the way Joe, I'm still awaiting a response to this post where I clearly lay out what my problem (as well as others') is with the WIN Method, and your way of explaining it.
What he said.
"Players can't get better over time." -GiantsFanatic
Joek, a simpler question: are WIN METHOD players winning because they are good, or good because they are winning?
"Players can't get better over time." -GiantsFanatic
Hmark6: A full dissertation of the WIN METHOD has been posted. I suggest you find it and read it.
Generalissimo: Do not confuse how the WIN METHOD is used to select players, and how the WIN METHOD respects and credits players for being the best. They are two different things. Contrary to Hmark6's illustrations on how he feels certain champions where not the best. The WIN METHOD gives credit and honors any player who helps lead his team to a championship. To denounce the champion, the winner, as not being the best, is in my opinion, a total denounciation of what they accomplished and played for. I have little patience and little respect for anyone that says any team and their players that has won a championship are not the best. The WIN METHOD as a selection process seeks to find in the inner soul of potential candidates that fire, character, determination, leadership, and the desire to be the best and play for the best under the most testing and trying conditions.
To answer your question as directly as possible. All players are good. It is what they achieve that makes them the best. Achieving personal stats and losing does not make you the best. Only winning makes you the best. The WIN METHOD gives the highest props to the players that get their team to the playoffs the most, win the most pennants and win the most WS. Not who has the most HRs, the most RBIs, the highest BA. Those are individual achievements, the WIN METHOD player plays to win for the team over individual stats. Why, because the game is played to win and only the very best win the most often.
But is completely irrelevant in the ascertaining of individual talent, as it is the 25 man roster that wins the championship, and not a single person... to assess an individual, the win method, as proven numerous times, is worthless... as worthless as it is to ascertain who is "the best" at any time prior to, or after the finish of the last game of the W.S.... if it WERE valid, you could then more easily predict the champion.. and in addition, with your win method caveat that they would 'want' to play for the Yankees, this shows exactly how much B.S. is in this 'theory'
Again.. if Jeter were on the field ALONE and winning a championship.. that would be one thing... but to say he is the greatest BECAUSE of the win method, is rediculous... individual greatness is based off of individual talent and accomplishment... and while a championship ring can be put on a resume, just like being in the most profitable company on the face of the earth.... it does not mean you are the greatest individual, or individual at your position, just as one is not inherently the best chemical engineer just because you work for Exxon Mobil
That's only partially true. Much more goes into valuing a player. How many times did Orlando Cabrera lead Montreal to the playoffs? Or even a winning season for that matter? But it turns out he was an key peice to the Red Sox in '04. Dumping Nomar, who was a part of 4 Red Sox playoffs teams, was a turning point for the Sox.
The entire point of what it takes to win and be the best has gone right over your head and passed you by. True individual achievement is in the winning and doing what is needed to help the team win. Not in any personal stat.
Register To Reply
