Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
Is the analytics vs traditional scouting debate still a thing?
Cafardo reminds me of one of those Japanese soldiers stuck on an island who still thinks World War II is raging on. Give it up gaijin, the war is over. Your side lost.
Cafardo reminds me of one of those Japanese soldiers stuck on an island who still thinks World War II is raging on. Give it up gaijin, the war is over. Your side lost.
He's not belittling the effectiveness of shifts, he's calling for their banning. He's Lear, bereft of his senses, howling fruitlessly at the wind.
Would he be in favor of banning bunting? Because bunting is the offense's version of the shift. Then we wouldn't have defensive players having to play down the line, they could stay in their little zones to make Nick happy. Make the whole area in front of home plate foul ground, the ball has to at least pass the plane of the front of the mound. Bunting is boring.
But that kind of change threatens the sanctity of the game I'm sure.
I saw Cafardo on TV last night and he seems like a nice, reasonable guy when he's interviewed. He says a couple of things in a very nice, measured, placid tone and he's not completely offensive to the eyes like Mitch Albom is and I thought to myself, "I can see why people like him and listen to him." Heck, I think that if I met and spoke with Cafardo, I'd like him.
But his TV personality seems to be a complete 180 from his writing style. He writes with arrogance and contempt of anything even remotely considered new or semi-intellectual. I don't know. Maybe he has a dual personality, which would be awesome. I think that's how I'm going to read his columns (assuming that I ever get the Sunday paper delivered to me again).
But his TV personality seems to be a complete 180 from his writing style. He writes with arrogance and contempt of anything even remotely considered new or semi-intellectual. I don't know. Maybe he has a dual personality, which would be awesome. I think that's how I'm going to read his columns (assuming that I ever get the Sunday paper delivered to me again).
2. Another brilliant marketing move by Fenway Sports Group, introducing Tessie as Wally the Green Monster’s sister. It may lessen the appearance load for poor Wally.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ame-chances/UJKMzXxkIUzyVogkp1s6GM/story.html
Also ... the Return of Ricciardi!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ame-chances/UJKMzXxkIUzyVogkp1s6GM/story.html
Also ... the Return of Ricciardi!
Was just coming here to note that. I usually think of Nicky as a "lazy, stubborn, dim witted buffoon." I now have to insert "self-absorbed, wildly inappropriate" to the descriptor.
Not sure what you're getting at here, because it seems like you know exactly why they would have done this, but this information is presented as something Theo told Cafardo on the record and Nick doesn't express any skepticism over it.
I should have included the particular stupidity I was referring to, rather than make people wonder what I was talking about or, even worse, making them mine the column for it themselves.
Anyway, it was directed at Cafardo's bewilderment at Theo's consideration of anything done by a team that "hasn't won."
Damn. He is either the biggest troll or the biggest moron to write something like that.
John Hart used that development system to build the only 1000 run offense in the last 60+ years, win 6 out of 7 division titles, take two pennants, and lose two of the closest world series in history. Now if you want to say his attempts to use his development system as trade chips didn't work so well, or that he had some problems acquiring a number one starter, that's fine. But as a model for player development, it's tough to do better.
John Hart used that development system to build the only 1000 run offense in the last 60+ years, win 6 out of 7 division titles, take two pennants, and lose two of the closest world series in history. Now if you want to say his attempts to use his development system as trade chips didn't work so well, or that he had some problems acquiring a number one starter, that's fine. But as a model for player development, it's tough to do better.
You know he uses/used the same reasoning when talking about Billy Beane and Moneyball. Or Branch Rickey and integration, "If the Dodgers 'progressive' philosophy is so good, why did they win only one World Series in the 1950s?"
Of course you can do the opposite and say, "The Marlins won in 1997 with a radical philosophy. Why don't more teams do it like them?"
I'm not saying Cafardo is a racist, this is for humor, but you can look at any "philosophy" and play this game.
Of course you can do the opposite and say, "The Marlins won in 1997 with a radical philosophy. Why don't more teams do it like them?"
I'm not saying Cafardo is a racist, this is for humor, but you can look at any "philosophy" and play this game.
Have to remember to toss "Dodgers only winning once after breaking the color line" in with his contempt for the non-winning Indians and A's and questioning whether the "Marlins' Way" is the "right way" into the next Mailing-it-in-With Nick's Mailbag.
Let me know how it goes, Joe. I can't ask him about this on Twitter, I've been blocked. 
And honestly, I have no idea why. I've never tweeted anything to him. Ever.
And honestly, I have no idea why. I've never tweeted anything to him. Ever.
I think on first reading I didn't think Nick was being especially critical, but now that I look again, he was being dismissive of Cleveland. So, my fault.
I was confused why those storylines were in quotes. I wondered who specifically told Nick these things, but then I realized Cafardo is insane and he probably was having a conversation with himself.
BTW, I love the mental gymnastic routine he did with Butterfield and Ramirez. That's classic Nick right there. "Butterfield is a complete bullshitter, but it's okay because optimistic!"
BTW, I love the mental gymnastic routine he did with Butterfield and Ramirez. That's classic Nick right there. "Butterfield is a complete bullshitter, but it's okay because optimistic!"
Did Nick actually watch those games? Price got really awful relief help a couple of times and was left out there far too long another time. He was shoving it up KC's ass quite effectively until the 7th inning of that game, and the hook was glacially slow.
Context matters.
Context matters.
I mean, holy shit. Could you have picked a more random-ass prospect to drool over? A future LOOGY at best, with no command. He's oo zero prospect lists, and absolutely not a "must see" in any regards.
FG did a short write-up on him last year and had this to say about his "plus" change-up.
I'm still trying to grasp why Lee's Price-like mannerisms matter. As a kid, I had Bird's sneaker rubbing thing down to a T. And then the game started.
might as well have added: "... unlike another team we know that tried to build a post-championship team using analytics."
He's so freaking annoying.
Morneau must've made himself available for an interview a time or two. Morneau = Jason Bay
Some days, I wonder if Nick has no more than four sources in the game: Jeremy Kapstein, JP Ricciardi, Gary Sheffield and the grill guy at Sizzler.
"The Yankees decided that a good deal was a good deal."
I wonder if Nick would have written this had the Sox traded for Chapman? Any time you can get a wife beater for four fringe prospects, it's just great business sense to do that.
Chalk up another win for the Yankees!
I wonder if Nick would have written this had the Sox traded for Chapman? Any time you can get a wife beater for four fringe prospects, it's just great business sense to do that.
Chalk up another win for the Yankees!
I suspect that with no charges against Chapman, that his problems with MLB will blow over pretty quickly. I don't see Yankees fans giving much of a shit about the allegations or his presence doing anything adverse to their revenues.
And I see having three flame throwers in their pen making leads after 6 innings pretty safe. Put it this way: I would prefer that he not have joined Miller and Betances.
As to the Sox, I would have trouble rooting for Champman, the man, but I can't claim that I would not have liked to have him in Boston next season, alongside Kimbrell, Koji and Tazawa. Nick would have written something stupid about this, of course.
"The Red Sox picked up Chapman, showing that even with new management they continue to place more emphasis on statistics and numbers on a spreadsheet, than the morals and character that a team like the Yankees have always held as a core component which is one of the reasons they passed on Chapman despite the reasonable price."
I heard callers to Michael Kay show saying they don't want to root for the Yankees anymore because of the acquisition of Chapmann.
I'll believe it when I see it. I mean, yeah, a very small percentage of fans falling away is believable, but anything more than that really isn't to me. We shall see. Do we take converts?
I heard a lot of Yankees fans react similarly to A-Rod's re-emergence last year...and had the sense that A-Rod's performance last year took care of a lot of those reactions.
True. Chapman is more despicable than Purple Lips.
But if Chapman performs well for the Yankees, MFYFs will turn a blind eye to the allegations in the same way that they turn a blind eye to A-Rod's serial cheating and other general douche-baggery. For a select few, principle will win out. But that number will be very low. And it will not affect the Yankees' bottom line in any meaningful way.
Not that Sox fans would behave differently.
I'm not so sure about that. Sox fans practically ran Wil Cordero out of town when he smacked his wife around with a telephone. But I agree that there probably would be a fair number of Sox fans looking the other way of Chapman was a strikeout machine.
However, the point of pointing out what Cafardo wrote isn't the hypocrisy of the fan base (that's a given) but how easily Cafardo bends and does his Yankee yoga while if the Sox (or really, any other team did this) he'd be ranting and raving about it. It's pretty disgusting.
Give the guy a break. He's saving his finite units of moral outrage for the things that matter -- Sandoval's weight and Ramirez's lack of fealty to "doing things the right way."
This is true. And if you stuck him in NY, no doubt he'd do the opposite.
- Status