Bad General Managers

[riflearm2]

Joey Gallo has played in the Big Leagues for the past 12 years.

Let's look at some important numbers for him over the past five seasons:

2020: .181 BA, 10 HRs, $4.4MM salary
2021: .199 BA, 38 HRs, $6.2MM salary
2022: .160 BA, 19 HRs, $10.3MM salary
2023: .177 BA, 21 HRs, $11MM salary
2024: .161 BA, 10 HRs, $5MM salary

This guy has earned $37MM over the past five seasons without hitting even .200 in any of the years! Hell, with the exception of one year, he hasn't even been close to hitting .200. He isn't a second baseman. He is a first baseman where a bat is required. Over the last five seasons, he has struck out 45% of his at bats! This is criminal and GMs continue to pay the guy heavily.

This is the kind of shit that is ruining baseball.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

What is the rationale here?

Is it just he passes the eyeball test (?big body, sometimes hits nukes?)?

At first glance it makes no sense.

I don't follow baseball closely but he better be a good glove and a good locker room guy or take a lot of walks, because what am I missing?

 

[Chris McLaughlin]

What is the rationale here?

Is it just he passes the eyeball test (?big body, sometimes hits nukes?)?

At first glance it makes no sense.

I don't follow baseball closely but he better be a good glove and a good locker room guy or take a lot of walks, because what am I missing?

GMs (and everyone in baseball, really) are obsessed with advanced metrics. To them, they’re hoping to get the Gallo who despite hitting below .200 will put up 3+ WAR and an OPS north of .800; which he did in 2021. Heck, in 2023 his OPS was .743, which is a decent tick above MLB average (was .714 in 2024).

Apparently he is a great guy but after watching him play for the Nats this year I can attest to how shitty of a player he is. He’s at the end of the line and I’d be surprised if he got anything more than a minor league, non guaranteed invite to spring training from somebody next year.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Every season he hit at least 80% of .200 and you claim the only year he was close to .200 was the one he hit .199.

Glad to see that you have finally agreed with my assertion that 75% is not close. Heck, you took it a step further and asserted that 80% is not close.

Thanks for finally being honest.

 

[muthed]

Joey Gallo has played in the Big Leagues for the past 12 years.

Let's look at some important numbers for him over the past five seasons:

2020: .181 BA, 10 HRs, $4.4MM salary
2021: .199 BA, 38 HRs, $6.2MM salary
2022: .160 BA, 19 HRs, $10.3MM salary
2023: .177 BA, 21 HRs, $11MM salary
2024: .161 BA, 10 HRs, $5MM salary

This guy has earned $37MM over the past five seasons without hitting even .200 in any of the years! Hell, with the exception of one year, he hasn't even been close to hitting .200. He isn't a second baseman. He is a first baseman where a bat is required. Over the last five seasons, he has struck out 45% of his at bats! This is criminal and GMs continue to pay the guy heavily.

This is the kind of shit that is ruining baseball.

You could replace him with your batting average numbers, amirite?

 

[i am herdman]

GMs (and everyone in baseball, really) are obsessed with advanced metrics. To them, they’re hoping to get the Gallo who despite hitting below .200 will put up 3+ WAR and an OPS north of .800; which he did in 2021. Heck, in 2023 his OPS was .743, which is a decent tick above MLB average (was .714 in 2024).

Apparently he is a great guy but after watching him play for the Nats this year I can attest to how shitty of a player he is. He’s at the end of the line and I’d be surprised if he got anything more than a minor league, non guaranteed invite to spring training from somebody next year.

Does he have a good glove? Maybe he works the pitch count all the time. hahahaha That is a lot of money to pay that guy(by looking at the stats). I don't follow it close enough to know.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Rifle is working on his novel to explain how 18 is almost 24 but .160 isn’t almost .200 even though .160 is closer to .200 than 18 is to 24.

 

[riflearm2]

Rifle is working on his novel to explain how 18 is almost 24 but .160 isn’t almost .200 even though .160 is closer to .200 than 18 is to 24.

I've already explained this in another thread, but your ignorance with numbers and logic exclude you from learning.

If I told people I was going to run from New York to Los Angeles, but I ended up having to stop in Las Vegas due to an injury, it's reasonable to say "he's in great shape, as he almost made it to Los Angeles by running!" Why? Because based on the activity and the distance gone on that activity, I would have been pretty damn close to fulfilling my objective.

Likewise, if I am driving from Old Main to Proctorville Kroger and I stop just before the bridge, I likewise would have almost made it to my destination. Yet both of those are about 75% of the way to the destination.

On the other hand, hitting .160 isn't close to hitting .200 based on the number of at bats he had.

Why? If he had a normal 500 at bats, a .160 hitter had 80 hits. In order for him to increase his average to .200, he would have to hit 50% better over his next 500 at bats. Improving by 50% is a huge jump to reach. On the other hand, assume he only had 20 at bats and only had three hits. He would have an average of .150. Yet he would only be one hit away from having hit .200, so saying he was close to hitting .200 is logical and makes sense in that situation.

That's called logic, and you refuse to use it most of your life.

 

[Rock98Dog]

A lot of words to explain away why you think 75% is “almost”, but 80% is “not close”.

Trying to explain away stupid is, well, stupid.

 

[riflearm2]

A lot of words to explain away why you think 75% is “almost”, but 80% is “not close”.

Trying to explain away stupid is, well, stupid.

I gave examples so you could better understand, as you have shown countless times to get confused when numbers are being used.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Which is closer to 100, 75 or 80?

 

[riflearm2]

Which is closer to 100, 75 or 80?

As seen on the below map, 75 would be closer to 100 than 80 would much of the time.
That’s because interstates running vertically end in -5, while interstates running horizontally end in -0. So even though 80 and 100 would both be horizontal, they’d basically run parallel while 75 would intersect with 100 at some point, making them closer than 80 and 100.




Of course you weren’t talking about interstates, but it was perfect to prove my point: you’re trying to be black-and-white when there is a lot of gray in this discussion. That gray refers to whatever is specifically being analyzed.

A perfect example:

Assume a baseball player had 500 at bats. Assume he hit .160, which means he had 80 hits. In order for him to increase his average to .200, he would have to hit 50% better over his next 500 at bats. Improving by 50% is a huge jump to reach. Even though .160 is 80% of 200, the player was nowhere close to hitting .200.

On the other hand, assume he only had 20 at bats and only had three hits. He would have an average of .150. Yet he would only be one hit away from having hit .200, so saying he was close to hitting .200 is logical and makes sense in that situation. Even though his average was only .150 (compared to the example above where his average was .160), the guy who went 3-20 is far closer to hitting .200 since he was only one hit away from reaching that level.

So in this case, which is closer to .200? .160 or .150? By far, the .150 is closer to .200 than the .160.

It goes back to what I have faulted you on before (and is yet another of my top strengths, as told to me by the Brown University grads who ran footballoutsiders.com): statistical analysis. You struggle with it, and the example above is proof of why it is so important.