How good is Anthony Rizzo?

[DewsSox79]

That's a skill, though. Not knowledge.



There you go. But that's a bit of an oxymoron, since I know this... I must know some shit about baseball.

no, you really dont.


Sent from my Fischs grocery store using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Obvious]

"experience does not equal knowledge" and "experience means nothing in today's game"

to quote mark cuban: "you use vague generalities so no one can question you"

well,except,we can:tiptoe:

I'm so vague.

In that case, yes. But it's not a guarantee. Experience does not correlate to knowledge. Specifically playing experience. I don't care how many years of college/minor league/pro ball you've played. I don't care if you've never been to a game. I don't care about any of that. It doesn't equal knowledge. You can obtain knowledge without experience and generally experience give those with it a false sense of knowledge. If you can turn a double play, it doesn't mean you know where to bat Darwin Barney in a line up.

 

[Rice Cube]

You can acquire knowledge from just reading a book or a manual etc., but without framing it in the proper context you're just regurgitating information without actually applying it properly.

 

[Captain Obvious]

depends on which podcasts and radio station? ok co.


Sent from my Fischs grocery store using Tapatalk

If you listen to a Kevin Goldstein podcast, you're going to be more knowledgeable about prospects than if you listen to a bleacher nation podcast. Yes, it does depend on which podcasts and radio stations(I honestly don't know if there are good radio stations, I don't listen to the radio).

If you play extensively then you also know the fundamentals of the game fairly well and you also can better anticipate what your teammates and opponents would do in a given situation. By extension, you can anticipate what players you coach/observe will likely do in similar situations. In short, having more experience is never a bad thing, unless your teachers and coaches were stupid.

Fundamentals are skills, though. I disagree. It can be a bad thing. I see it ALL the time when a coach is a former player. Because he played, he thinks he knows everything. Players have this sense of knowledge, but it's not knowledge. It's a skill. Baseball is a skill.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

I'm so vague.

you do realize that the example is still pretty vague?

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

experience playing..... that's why I said playing experience. (you even highlighted it) But we can expand on the question to include watching games. Depending on the radio and podcasts, one could include that. Depends on which podcasts and radio stations. Let's stick to playing experience for now.

it's 12:30 AM..i have selective reading...whatever

i dont think that's what the OP was referring to though....

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

double post

 

[Rice Cube]

If you listen to a Kevin Goldstein podcast, you're going to be more knowledgeable about prospects than if you listen to a bleacher nation podcast. Yes, it does depend on which podcasts and radio stations(I honestly don't know if there are good radio stations, I don't listen to the radio).

Fundamentals are skills, though. I disagree. It can be a bad thing. I see it ALL the time when a coach is a former player. Because he played, he thinks he knows everything. Players have this sense of knowledge, but it's not knowledge. It's a skill. Baseball is a skill.

Fundamentals are also knowledge because there are certain strategies and game plans that are logical that should be followed. If an outfielder doesn't throw to the right base because he didn't know he was supposed to throw to that base, then that is a failure in teaching and in acquisition of knowledge even if his skills (good arm, good range, good accuracy) are solid. Scouts also need to look at many players to see which ones have that particular skillset that the team is looking for. All of this requires experience and repetition so that you solidify the knowledge. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to accept.

 

[2SeamHeat]

Well technically Bill James, Keith Law, Theo. None of them have baseball backgrounds. They're just smart. But I'm pretty sure they at least knew baseball before they became famous in the game. Not 100% on that though.

They all worked their way up within FOs as well, while being tutored by guys with... get this... vast experience. None of them became high-ranking officials with their teams (past and present) before acquiring their own... experience... at doing what they do. I wonder why you never find anyone in a prominent role in a baseball FO unless they've had vast experience with scouting, negotiation, and performance analysis. I wonder why you never find a guy coaching or managing unless they've either had previous experience in another level... or had vast experience in leadership roles as a player.

I mean, if assumed knowledge is all that's required... then why is this?

 

[2SeamHeat]

Ditto.



I've played and I umpire. I know the rules of the game a lot better than you do, I guarantee you that. Excuse me for not being fluent in the CBA, I didn't know that was directly related to not knowing baseball.

We aren't talking about experience in the game. If you would read, you would see that. Experience doesn't equal knowledge. That is my point.

Yeah, I doubt you know the rules better than I do. I've played, and probably at a level vastly higher than you did. I've coached on several levels. I've umpired, probably at the same levels you have. I've been the commissioner of amateur leagues. Oh, and I pay attention to rule changes when they are announced...

Yet, this is a baseball board. You want to make this general.... alright. Go get a MBA from an Ivy League school without a minute's worth of experience in business administration... and let's see what job you land. Will you suddenly be an executive? Hell no. You'll, at best, be a middle manager somewhere working your way to the top. Go get a law degree from the same school. Will you be a partner for a law firm the moment you get handed your degree? Hell no! Not unless your uncle hires you for his law firm (or something to that degree). You'll spend half a decade busting your hump to become a junior partner, then another decade to make full partner. Go get you a medical degree from the most prestigious medical school in the world... and yet you'll still have to work as an intern under the tutelage of a real doctor for 4-6 years before you are hired full time in the medical field. Go to a vocational school and get yourself a certification as a Machine Operator. You'll still be hired on at a machine shop as a trainee for 6 months.

Why? Because experience is what counts. You can obtain all the knowledge you want, but without knowing the techniques of the practice of that knowledge... it's all useless. Your statements here, Captain Oblivious, merely point out the fact that you're just a kid who has no idea what it's like in the real world.

Oh, and by the way, I know many, many people who are vastly knowledgeable in their fields... and yet the majority of them obtained this knowledge through experience... not because some website flubs around with arbitrary statistics that you like to wield to your own purpose (but ignore all of the other stats that suggest you might be wrong) and call it knowledge. Then again, it's probably a safe bet that you actually learned how to call a strike from a ball from your experience, rather than the preset knowledge of where it is. Notice the word "learned" there? If you "learn" something, you obtain knowledge.

 

[nwfisch]

You can acquire knowledge from just reading a book or a manual etc., but without framing it in the proper context you're just regurgitating information without actually applying it properly.

Weird. That sounds exactly like something CO does!

 

[Rice Cube]

Weird. That sounds exactly like something CO does!

He's not the only one.

 

[Uman85]

Rizzo's the best 1B in the NL Central...with Votto on the DL.

 

[dabynsky]

He's not the only one.

:thinking:

 

[nwfisch]

Rizzo's the best 1B in the NL Central...with Votto on the DL.

Nah Rizzo's better than Pujols

 

[Captain Obvious]

Fundamentals are also knowledge because there are certain strategies and game plans that are logical that should be followed. If an outfielder doesn't throw to the right base because he didn't know he was supposed to throw to that base, then that is a failure in teaching and in acquisition of knowledge even if his skills (good arm, good range, good accuracy) are solid. Scouts also need to look at many players to see which ones have that particular skillset that the team is looking for. All of this requires experience and repetition so that you solidify the knowledge. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to accept.

This is Major League Baseball, we're talking about. Not Little League. If they don't know what base to throw to, what are they doing in the big leagues? Or even in the minor leagues.

Scouts don't HAVE to look at players. Their stat sheet really says most of what they need to know. Yes, we have to have scouts, to look for "intangibles," or rather, how I like to think of it, is there anything about this guy that we need to stay away from. Scouts are going to be wrong about players more than not. Perfect example is Kris Honel, 2001 1st rounder of the Sox. He was supposed to be "pitcher version of Derek Jeter" He never even made the big leagues. Scouts said he was the second coming of Jesus Christ. And when scouts are right, more than not, the stats are going to agree. An "experienced" scout, is just an old scout. It doesn't mean he is good.

They all worked their way up within FOs as well, while being tutored by guys with... get this... vast experience. None of them became high-ranking officials with their teams (past and present) before acquiring their own... experience... at doing what they do. I wonder why you never find anyone in a prominent role in a baseball FO unless they've had vast experience with scouting, negotiation, and performance analysis. I wonder why you never find a guy coaching or managing unless they've either had previous experience in another level... or had vast experience in leadership roles as a player.

I mean, if assumed knowledge is all that's required... then why is this?

Of course they worked their way up. It still has nothing to do with my point. You're talking about other random shit. I'm talking about PLAYING experience. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

Yeah, I doubt you know the rules better than I do. I've played, and probably at a level vastly higher than you did. I've coached on several levels. I've umpired, probably at the same levels you have. I've been the commissioner of amateur leagues. Oh, and I pay attention to rule changes when they are announced...

You're making my point for me. You've done it all, therefore you know it all.

Yet, this is a baseball board. You want to make this general.... alright. Go get a MBA from an Ivy League school without a minute's worth of experience in business administration... and let's see what job you land. Will you suddenly be an executive? Hell no. You'll, at best, be a middle manager somewhere working your way to the top. Go get a law degree from the same school. Will you be a partner for a law firm the moment you get handed your degree? Hell no! Not unless your uncle hires you for his law firm (or something to that degree). You'll spend half a decade busting your hump to become a junior partner, then another decade to make full partner. Go get you a medical degree from the most prestigious medical school in the world... and yet you'll still have to work as an intern under the tutelage of a real doctor for 4-6 years before you are hired full time in the medical field. Go to a vocational school and get yourself a certification as a Machine Operator. You'll still be hired on at a machine shop as a trainee for 6 months.

We're talking about baseball. Not doctors and lawyers.

Why? Because experience is what counts. You can obtain all the knowledge you want, but without knowing the techniques of the practice of that knowledge... it's all useless. Your statements here, Captain Oblivious, merely point out the fact that you're just a kid who has no idea what it's like in the real world.

How does playing experience count when it comes to knowledge of the game? It doesn't. If you have all the knowledge about baseball, but don't know how to play baseball it's useless? Is that what you're saying?

It doesn't matter what the real world is like. We're talking about baseball. It's a game. Not an Ivy League School.

Oh, and by the way, I know many, many people who are vastly knowledgeable in their fields... and yet the majority of them obtained this knowledge through experience... not because some website flubs around with arbitrary statistics that you like to wield to your own purpose (but ignore all of the other stats that suggest you might be wrong) and call it knowledge. Then again, it's probably a safe bet that you actually learned how to call a strike from a ball from your experience, rather than the preset knowledge of where it is. Notice the word "learned" there? If you "learn" something, you obtain knowledge.

The strike zone is not something that you can just learn. It's something that you're essentially born with. It's not something that you can just teach a player. He's either going to know it or not. Thus, it's a skill. Mr. Soriano is an example. Again, baseball, not other fields. Baseball.

 

[2SeamHeat]

Of course they worked their way up. It still has nothing to do with my point. You're talking about other random shit. I'm talking about PLAYING experience. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

Yet, you didn't come up with this "playing experience" notion until a few posts in. Your initial statement was experience in general does not equal knowledge. That in of itself is one of the most ignorant statements ever made. You switched to this "playing experience" notion after you realized your initial response was quite ridiculous.

We're talking about baseball. Not doctors and lawyers.

And again, I'm harping on your original statement and continued argument that experience does not equal knowledge. This is your lone argument here. You either try to switch the argument into something you feel is in your favor, while trying to ignore your original statements. This is all you have ever done, CO, each and every time you are proven wrong.

How does playing experience count when it comes to knowledge of the game? It doesn't. If you have all the knowledge about baseball, but don't know how to play baseball it's useless? Is that what you're saying?

And once again, you come back to the notion you mustered up AFTER you've been destroyed on your initial statement. How quaint.

It doesn't matter what the real world is like. We're talking about baseball. It's a game. Not an Ivy League School.

And yet... real life factors don't exist in baseball... a game ran as a business.

And yet, you're the one that said

Experience doesn't equal knowledge. Experience means nothing in today's game.

You're the one who says this same exact statement multiple times in this thread. You don't create the "playing experience" notion until your 3rd post. So, from your initial arguments, we're supposed to believe that any person... like you... that claims to have such and such knowledge, but has 0 experience in negotiation, scouting, analysis, publicity, etc could suddenly be a MLB GM? I guess that all of these current 30 GMs didn't have to work their way up from some facet of the team (or another team) and obtain the knowledge and skills required by experience. I suppose all of these 30 managers and coaching staffs had 0 experience with the game whatsoever. I wonder, did the players have experience playing the game before they made it to the majors?

Oh, and do note, in your pathetic statement.... no where is it mentioned that "baseball" only equates to the front office. So, now we're supposed to believe that having experience as a player can't possibly hold nuggets of knowledge that a coach, trainer, scout, etc couldn't use? You only line this up to playing experience and the FO later on, in a desperate attempt to save yourself.

The strike zone is not something that you can just learn. It's something that you're essentially born with. It's not something that you can just teach a player. He's either going to know it or not. Thus, it's a skill. Mr. Soriano is an example. Again, baseball, not other fields. Baseball.

And I thought your previous statement was ridiculous. If it can't be taught, then I wonder how so many people manage to learn it. Oh, that's right, you're born with it... If this is the case, then why is it that the vast majority of MLB players adjust during each game... since so many umpires have different strike zones? :eyeroll:

Again, life.... baseball is part of life. Your "experience does not equal knowledge" statement fails in every aspect of life. You've failed to grasp that I'm arguing against THAT statement and bringing it into the baseball equation overall.

 

[Rice Cube]

This is Major League Baseball, we're talking about. Not Little League. If they don't know what base to throw to, what are they doing in the big leagues? Or even in the minor leagues.

Scouts don't HAVE to look at players. Their stat sheet really says most of what they need to know. Yes, we have to have scouts, to look for "intangibles," or rather, how I like to think of it, is there anything about this guy that we need to stay away from. Scouts are going to be wrong about players more than not. Perfect example is Kris Honel, 2001 1st rounder of the Sox. He was supposed to be "pitcher version of Derek Jeter" He never even made the big leagues. Scouts said he was the second coming of Jesus Christ. And when scouts are right, more than not, the stats are going to agree. An "experienced" scout, is just an old scout. It doesn't mean he is good.

Are we cherry-picking what "experience" is here? :lol:

Obviously even MLB players are a work in progress and they will always, at some point, need instruction from those with more experience than they do. Skills, knowledge, etc. all come from greater experience. You could probably learn how to do simple chemistry from a book but if you don't have the right application of knowledge you're going to blow up your house. With baseball, if you don't have the experienced scouts and coaches, you're going to pick the wrong players more often than not and worse yet, screw up their development. I don't think anyone wants that, but then again I'm probably not as knowledgeable as you :lol:

 

[packfan]

The GOAT

 

[Captain Obvious]

Yet, you didn't come up with this "playing experience" notion until a few posts in. Your initial statement was experience in general does not equal knowledge. That in of itself is one of the most ignorant statements ever made. You switched to this "playing experience" notion after you realized your initial response was quite ridiculous.



And again, I'm harping on your original statement and continued argument that experience does not equal knowledge. This is your lone argument here. You either try to switch the argument into something you feel is in your favor, while trying to ignore your original statements. This is all you have ever done, CO, each and every time you are proven wrong.



And once again, you come back to the notion you mustered up AFTER you've been destroyed on your initial statement. How quaint.



And yet... real life factors don't exist in baseball... a game ran as a business.

And yet, you're the one that said You're the one who says this same exact statement multiple times in this thread. You don't create the "playing experience" notion until your 3rd post. So, from your initial arguments, we're supposed to believe that any person... like you... that claims to have such and such knowledge, but has 0 experience in negotiation, scouting, analysis, publicity, etc could suddenly be a MLB GM? I guess that all of these current 30 GMs didn't have to work their way up from some facet of the team (or another team) and obtain the knowledge and skills required by experience. I suppose all of these 30 managers and coaching staffs had 0 experience with the game whatsoever. I wonder, did the players have experience playing the game before they made it to the majors?

Oh, and do note, in your pathetic statement.... no where is it mentioned that "baseball" only equates to the front office. So, now we're supposed to believe that having experience as a player can't possibly hold nuggets of knowledge that a coach, trainer, scout, etc couldn't use? You only line this up to playing experience and the FO later on, in a desperate attempt to save yourself.



And I thought your previous statement was ridiculous. If it can't be taught, then I wonder how so many people manage to learn it. Oh, that's right, you're born with it... If this is the case, then why is it that the vast majority of MLB players adjust during each game... since so many umpires have different strike zones? :eyeroll:

Again, life.... baseball is part of life. Your "experience does not equal knowledge" statement fails in every aspect of life. You've failed to grasp that I'm arguing against THAT statement and bringing it into the baseball equation overall.

I never changed my argument. It's always been playing experience doesn't equal knowledge. Yes, that was my first post. But you know what the post after me said? Please clarify. Which I did. I fail to see how that is changing my argument. I'm not ignoring any original statement. He asked for a clarification. Which I gave him. I have never changed my stance. He REALLLLLLY destroyed my argument. Asking for a clarification. Right.

Sure baseball ran as a business. It doesn't change that it is a game.

Where did I ever say that someone with no experience in anything could be a GM? LMFAO. Do you read what you type? That's asinine. I never even came close to saying that.

I NEVER said that experience can't give one knowledge. I said it doesn't equal it. Meaning, just because you have experience, doesn't mean that you have knowledge. And vice versa. It doesn't have to be exclusive to the front office. A manager that has played, doesn't necessarily have knowledge. Perhaps he "learned" with a runner on 1st and one out, in a tight game, you bunt him over. Just because he "learned" that, doesn't mean he is knowledgeable. That's certainly not the smart thing to do there. It's not the dumbest, but it gives away an out.

Umpires really don't have that vastly different of a strike zone. If you can teach the strike zone, why is Soriano so bad at it? Miguel Tejeda? Vlad?

I don't give a **** about life. I'm not here to talk about life. I'm here to talk about baseball.