Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 17, 2004
DePodesta in LA

A big story in LA, there are four articles about DePodesta in today's LA Times. The first is the basic news story. It's interesting that Paul is trying to allay the Moneyball fears.


"I'm not looking to make changes in scouting, I'm looking to change the way we do business," DePodesta said. "I'm open to new ideas — that's how we became successful in Oakland…. What we'll try to do is take everything into account when we make a decision. We're not going to only rely on statistics or only rely on scouting reports. It's all going to play a part in the process….

"The games are not played by computers. It comes down to whether players can perform in critical situations. There's a human element to this that is not measurable. You have to mesh everything into the decision-making process."


"A part in the process." Notice he doesn't say how big each part will be. He's being a good politician, ambiguous enough that everyone can think what they want to think.

Ross Newhan looks at the way DePodesta might be unconventional, comparing him to Beane and Ricciardi. When he talks about Dan Evans stocking the Dodgers farm system, Beane gives him a great quote:


Under the deposed Dan Evans and scouting director Logan White, a long-fallow Dodger farm system improved from 28th to 14th to fourth among the 30 teams in annual rankings by Baseball America. DePodesta saluted the work of Evans and White in that regard and said there are now some "real studs" in the system.

However, it was Evans' refusal to trade any of his elite prospects for the needed power hitter that may have contributed to his firing, and DePodesta seemed to be making a point in that regard when he said a farm system serves two purposes: restocking the major league club and providing trade fodder.

From Oakland, DePodesta's former boss was even more pointed.

"The object is to win games at the major league level," Beane said by phone, "and not to run around waving a flag and saying how great your farm system is and how much it has improved."

Bill Plaschke is somewhat dismissive of DePodesta, based on his age and his mathematical accumen.


The Dodgers have a new voice, and it speaks in megabytes.

Meet General Manager.Com, otherwise known as Paul DePodesta, a 31-year-old computer nerd who was hired Monday to rid the Dodgers of their, um, virus.

"I'll admit, there's some boldness to this," said owner Frank McCourt. "But that's exactly what we need to do to change things around here."

Change it they have, from Branch Rickey to Little Rickey, from Buzzie Bavasi to Bill Gates, from wise old men who trusted effort to a kid who relies on … equations?

Finally, T.J. Simers is downright hostile. He seems to be dismayed that the Dodgers only got the 4th best GM prospect as rated by Baseball America.


BEYOND THAT, I know the Dodgers called a news conference Monday to tell everyone they had just hired the fourth-best GM prospect available in baseball to run their storied franchise. "We got No. 4, We got No. 4, We got No. 4."

I found it interesting the Dodgers would quote such a thing from Baseball America in their own Paul DePodesta news release, so I asked the Boston parking lot attendant who borrowed everything to buy the Dodgers if there was a reason why he hadn't hired Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on Baseball America's list of top GM prospects.

And there was. He had no idea who they were. Some exhaustive search.


However, if you look at the list, DePodesta is at the top in terms of people who use statistical analysis as the basis for their decisions. So if you believe in that, Paul would be your #1 choice.

I think he's going to be great, just as Theo has been great for Boston and Ricciardi has been great for the Blue Jays. Paul will find a way to keep the Tommy Lasorda wing of the Dodgers happy, while building the team his own way. LA fans should be very excited about this move.


Posted by David Pinto at 11:33 AM | Management | TrackBack (2)
Comments

Interesting that Bill Plaschke would mention Branch Rickey in the same breath as equations as a supposed slam on DePodesta. I guess he doesn't realise that the ol' residue-meister took a keen interest in equations:
http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/brickey.htm

Posted by: Johnny Mack at February 17, 2004 12:56 PM

Also about Plaschke, the A's would love to have had Gibson and his .360+ OPB.

They just wouldn't have overvalued him as a franchise-type player.

It's amazing to see the hostile reactions from the old-school sportswriters to anyone daring to change baseball thinking.

Posted by: steve at February 17, 2004 02:08 PM

I think Evans got the short end of the stick here. It's hard to blame the GM when he couldn't do anything while the sale was going through, and now we have a team heading into ST with nothing much to show for the off-season but an untested owner and GM. Grr.

Posted by: Linkmeister at February 17, 2004 04:38 PM

The only thing not having done much before spring training means is that you're about to see a LOT of moves.

I am very much looking forward to seeing how Depo does, and I think he's about to bite the NL West in the ass.

Posted by: John at February 17, 2004 06:05 PM

Um, John, I have to disagree a little. They had opportunities to bid for Ordonez and Guerrero and couldn't because McCourt was warned by Selig that doing so might endanger the sale, from what I've read in the LA Times. Considering their biggest need is offense, that hurts.

Posted by: Linkmeister at February 17, 2004 06:13 PM


Take it from those of us who have to read the LA Times every day -- Plaschke is an idiot. Simers just likes to stir up trouble, which is fun, but his opinions are not to be taken seriously. Plaschke, however, is an idiot.

Posted by: Chris Marcil at February 17, 2004 06:32 PM

Wait a sec - Baseball America rates GM prospects? Do the up-and-comers get timed on the 60-yard dash? Would Chris Kahrl be penalized for having titties?

Posted by: John Velousis at February 17, 2004 07:58 PM

Yea what was the deal with that Plaske article? Horribly written with absolutely no research done. Terrible.

How did a editor let that one fly?

Posted by: Jayho at February 18, 2004 09:03 AM

For an in depth thrashing...er...analysis of Plaschke's article, take a look at Aaron Gleeman's entry today (www.aarongleeman.com). Entertaining, to say the least.

Posted by: Chad at February 18, 2004 09:15 AM

Gees, I didn't realize how official these rankings were. Paul is number 4 in the subjective evaluation of other sportswriters...Oh no!

This is about as relevent as the rankings on "world's greatest dad" t-shirts (remember the Seinfeld episode). It is pretty sad when a sports writer has to stoop this low to slam a GM he doesn't like.

Posted by: JC at February 18, 2004 10:11 AM