Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike and the Mad Dog show

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mike and the Mad Dog show

    Today on their radio/YES TV show Mike and the Mad Dog talked with Yankee first baseman Bill 'MOOSE' Skowron. Skowron was asked about a comparison of Mickey Mantle to Willie Mays. Skowron said that Mickey Mantle was the best team player he ever played with and the difference between players is found by just looking at how many World Series each player played in and how many they won. He further stated this is defined by the WIN METHOD.
    Winning is what defines the best players.

  • #2
    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by bigbadwolf View Post
      Today on their radio/YES TV show Mike and the Mad Dog talked with Yankee first baseman Bill 'MOOSE' Skowron. Skowron was asked about a comparison of Mickey Mantle to Willie Mays. Skowron said that Mickey Mantle was the best team player he ever played with and the difference between players is found by just looking at how many World Series each player played in and how many they won. He further stated this is defined by the WIN METHOD.
      Winning is what defines the best players.
      This argument is past redundant.

      Let me just ask you two final questions.

      Are you aware of how the game of baseball is played and have you ever watched a game?

      That`s the only logical conclusion I have.
      2009 World Series Champions, The New York Yankees

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mariano_Rivera View Post
        This argument is past redundant.

        Let me just ask you two final questions.

        Are you aware of how the game of baseball is played and have you ever watched a game?

        That`s the only logical conclusion I have.
        So redundant that many a player and fan know that what an individual accomplishes for himself may or may not have any bearing on what the team accomplishes. That is why many a player and fan know that the best players help lead their team to playoffs, pennants, and WS rings. There I said it again.

        The game of baseball is played so that the team wins and normally the teams that win the most go to the playoffs and have a chance to win the pennant and the WS.

        I have watched many a game.

        Your defense of failure is what is past redundant.

        Now don't go into a tizzy again. All I posted was what a truly great player stated while being interviewed on a sports show.

        Comment


        • #5
          Using that method, Skowron himself would be more valuable than Mays.

          Comment


          • #6
            Gee, I didn't know that ol' Moose was a disciple of the WIN METHOD. Do tell, did he happen to mention his teammate Charlie Silvera? Charlie, with his six rings (1949-53, '56), was a WIN METHOD monster. He was a forceful presence there warming guys up in the pen. That surely outweighed his one game played with two at-bats in those six World Series. I'm bewildered that the '57 Cubs were not immediately transformed upon acquiring him.

            Francesa, who knows all and sees all, must surely be a proponent too. Russo can't even remember what he had for breakfast this morning, though.

            Just for kicks, I Googled the illustrious WIN METHOD. There's been a lot of smoke blown on various forums since roughly 2005 on this subject. Nowhere has an actual explanation -- one that is not ex post facto -- of the "method" actually been put forth (at least that I can find).

            Write an article. Start a website. Answer the questions I asked in the Melky Cabrera thread. Put up or...nah, that would be asking too much.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Macker View Post
              Using that method, Skowron himself would be more valuable than Mays.
              Using that method, if you have a World Series ring, you are more valuable than Ted Williams, no?

              Not sure how difficult it is to see how flawed that WIN METHOD is and I thought this argument died months ago? :noidea

              Comment


              • #8
                All and any players should be judged during the era they played, the rules of baseball during their playing career, the position they played, how much they played, eachs role on their team, etc.

                It woluld be foolish for anyone to even think of comparing the 25th role player on a team to the number 1 starter on another team.

                Ted Williams was one of the greatest players of all time, just not the gretest at any point of duration over his career. During Teds career there were several truly great starting outfielders who helped lead their team to WS rings. Since winning the WS is the goal of the team and hopefully all the teams players (not by mouth - but by doing), Williams as great has he was, was not the greatest.

                Comment


                • #9
                  For the sake of friendly debate here, I'm going to try to look at it from bbw's angle for a little while again. It's easy to lampoon the WIN METHOD, but there's still a kernel of truth in there.

                  I noted in the Melky thread that I honestly believe there's really something to intangibles and team chemistry. What I wanted to know, though, was not how players are judged after their careers are in the books, but how the method identifies talent.

                  Post #10 on this 2005 thread from another forum is the closest thing out there to anything that truly gets at the method. Allegedly there's a confidentiality issue.

                  http://www.strike3forums.com/forums/...in-method.html

                  There's apparently a heavy psychological component here. But many teams in many sports do this. More importantly, though:

                  * If the Yankees did start applying the method circa 1994, as joek suggested, it would have had nothing to do with the drafting of Bernie Williams (1985), Jorge Posada (1990), Andy Pettitte (1991), or especially Mariano Rivera (1990) and bbw's beloved Derek Jeter (1992). The trade for Paul O'Neill, winner, took place in November 1992.
                  * The credit for the last five major pieces -- and, in my opinion, the Yankee dynasty from 1996 on -- belongs largely to Mr. Gene Michael and the system he nurtured.

                  Thanks.

                  PS: It looks like Charlie Silvera (a self-described "spear carrier") is due an ounce of credit for his contribution to Yankee team chemistry in the '50s. Here's Don Larsen on the subject:

                  http://books.google.com/books?id=qqb...XX1VVAx4g-z828

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Baseball is not football, a player can miss every ground ball and strike out every time but his team can still win if everyone else picks up the slack. You are right, the GOAL of the TEAM is to win the World Series, but the GOAL of the PLAYER is to help his team win as much as possible. The Win Method is flawed because a player cannot control how other players play, only himself. The Win Method vastly overstates intangibles and chemistry.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Every time I read that I get exhilarated. That is so good and so true. You make claims re players in the late 80's and early 90's. Please note joek had been funded by Steinbrenner from the 70's. As the WIN METHOD was constantly being fine tuned, it was technically used starting in the late 70's to some degree. It was used more and more as time progressed. As its success developed so did the draftings. It worked so well, that Steinbrenner entered into an exclusive deal for the WIN METHOD for ten years. It has been renewed for a second ten years. The success of the Yankee team since its inception has been matched by no other team in baseball, based on playoffs, pennants and WS wins. The interview process on kids in high school, college, and foreign countries is what intrigues me. And just how its overwhelming success is accomplished leaves me amazed. But one needs to look no further than the likes of Bill Gates, Bobby Fisher, etal. to see that genius can come from anywhere. Don't forget, joek started his process in the 50's. That alone is amazing. Years upon years developing the greatest evaluation tool in baseball, in my opinion.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by -Kyle- View Post
                        Baseball is not football, a player can miss every ground ball and strike out every time but his team can still win if everyone else picks up the slack. You are right, the GOAL of the TEAM is to win the World Series, but the GOAL of the PLAYER is to help his team win as much as possible. The Win Method is flawed because a player cannot control how other players play, only himself. The Win Method vastly overstates intangibles and chemistry.
                        A player can help his team win as much as possible without massive individual stats. In other words, a player with lessor individual stats may help his team more than a player with greater individual stats. Its not the individual stat that matters, it's the team win that counts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bigbadwolf View Post
                          Every time I read that I get exhilarated. That is so good and so true. You make claims re players in the late 80's and early 90's. Please note joek had been funded by Steinbrenner from the 70's. As the WIN METHOD was constantly being fine tuned, it was technically used starting in the late 70's to some degree. It was used more and more as time progressed. As its success developed so did the draftings. It worked so well, that Steinbrenner entered into an exclusive deal for the WIN METHOD for ten years. It has been renewed for a second ten years. The success of the Yankee team since its inception has been matched by no other team in baseball, based on playoffs, pennants and WS wins. The interview process on kids in high school, college, and foreign countries is what intrigues me. And just how its overwhelming success is accomplished leaves me amazed. But one needs to look no further than the likes of Bill Gates, Bobby Fisher, etal. to see that genius can come from anywhere. Don't forget, joek started his process in the 50's. That alone is amazing. Years upon years developing the greatest evaluation tool in baseball, in my opinion.
                          That's not exactly what joek said in that thread. He was developing his thoughts for a long time, allegedly got some funding in the '70s, but said the system was ready in the '90s.

                          I sincerely doubt whether this guy had any influence over Gene Michael, who's his own man, or any of the Yankee people (let's not forget Buck Showalter).

                          There's been so much written about the success of the Yankees and how they became a top power again. If the method were any kind of factor at all, it would not have escaped attention. Please...let's leave the credit with the real baseball men and not somebody who may or may not have been a hanger-on. Remember, Steinbrenner funded Howie Spira too.

                          I've extended every possible benefit of the doubt that I can see, but I'm sorry -- it just doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            While I disagree with Skowron's assessment of Willie Mays, I won't spend all my time belittling it. However, if used directly, this would make Yogi Berra the greatest baseball player ever, since he'd won 10 rings in 14 tries. Walter "Big Train" Johnson, whom many consider the greatest pitcher ever, only one a single WS ring around 1925.

                            I'm just glad that both Mays and Mantle played in the same city and for different leagues. Had they both played on the same team and debuted in the same year, who would play CF? Where would the other guy play? Who would be the ROY? That would be an impossible debate to figure out.

                            I don't know about the more learned historians on here, but to me, the two most enthusastic "Who's Better?" types of debates in NYC have always centered on Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays. After this, there was Campy vs Yogi, Pee Wee vs Scooter.

                            I'm just very happy that both great men played in NYC during the baseball glory days.
                            Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting. 2007-11 CBA
                            Rest very peacefully, John “Buck” O'Neil (1911-2006) & Philip Francis “Scooter” Rizzuto (1917-2007)
                            THE BROOKLYN DODGERS - 1890 thru 1957
                            Montreal Expos 1969 - 2004

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by VIBaseball View Post
                              That's not exactly what joek said in that thread. He was developing his thoughts for a long time, allegedly got some funding in the '70s, but said the system was ready in the '90s.

                              I sincerely doubt whether this guy had any influence over Gene Michael, who's his own man, or any of the Yankee people (let's not forget Buck Showalter).

                              There's been so much written about the success of the Yankees and how they became a top power again. If the method were any kind of factor at all, it would not have escaped attention. Please...let's leave the credit with the real baseball men and not somebody who may or may not have been a hanger-on. Remember, Steinbrenner funded Howie Spira too.

                              I've extended every possible benefit of the doubt that I can see, but I'm sorry -- it just doesn't bear up to scrutiny.
                              I agree, 'ready in the 90's'. joek has stated he and Steinbrenner reached a financial deal for ten years in the 90's and it was renewed in the 2000's for another 10 years. joek has stated he reported and gave his information to one man only, and that was Steinbrenner. Since Steinbrenner had final say on anything the Yankees did, joek only needed to deal with him and no one else. One other thing, a few years back all the media was stating how bad the Yankee farm system was and they had NO ONE on the horizon. At this exact same time joek was stating just how loaded the Yankee farm system was and that they had countless pitching prospects signed that he had recommended to Steinbrenner. That in a few years the harvest would be reaped. It sure looks like joek was right again in his assessment of what the minor league organization had to offer.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X