A Book and OODA Loop: A Worthy Read? OODA Loop in One's Life

A Decade in the Making

It has been a great while since I have posted here. As most long-time readers (probably less than five) know, I had been plugging away or finishing up my pièce de résistance, a baseball book, titled, Bringin' Gas and Dialin' 9: A Seven Score  Addiction to the National Pastime (1869-1949), Volume 1. Quite a mouthful, and well, I say a lot over 517 pages (with appendices). 

While I could give you a quick synopsis about all the topics, ranging from the faithful beginnings of the game to macrosabermetric analysis of top baseball prospects and their intrinsic value in the present day, I'd rather not. Instead, I want to say that while I accomplished something nearly a decade in the doing, I feel a severe let down in this moment.

Maybe it comes from the personal energies expended this summer to rewrite and edit together many working parts in the last section, in particular. Or the dissatisfaction I still have that I could have expounded more on the game, through its first century (the actual time frame is longer than the title suggests) of the game. Or even the much harder task of marketing the book - as I'm not all that keen to that proposition - even as I attend Valparaiso's MBA program and work on a Global Marketing class at the present. I should be really thrilled to apply lessons on branding, creating channels to the product, pitching it, finding markets, and otherwise, making people more aware of it through Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Outbrain, and all the baseball websites in existence. (And create an outlet on Amazon - which is another story, tied to formatting.)

No, those things are in mix, to be sure, but don't quite nail down what is driving the undercurrent of the recent letdown.  I wish those loved the most dearly in life were alive to see the final outcome of the project: my mother atop that list. I acknowledged this here and here. I won't recount the story in this blog, but we all have reasons we do things and for people we admired and inspired us to just try. Just try. Give it the college try - as the cliche goes.

But motivation to carry on - that daily will to endeavor on something of greater significance - has been absent. Other priorities, namely, the pressing venture back to full-time employment and those unknowns (at the moment), seem hollow, and a bit underwhelming. If recent contacts and recruiters are of any indication to those prospects. (To a future employer: Look, if you are happy every single day with your career, family and daily tasking, I commend you. But I suspect that's not what is really going on. My realism on this subject is acknowledging a verity, for me, at least: I have a sinusoidal curve when it come to my emotions about things.)

 OODA Loop

 I guess to show I am making efforts to break this funk, I will include something of recent learning in my marketing class, which I have shared a few places online. The OODA loop, which like the DMAIC cycle and other ideas on learning, quick decision-making, or dramatic process improvement methods, has application towards creativity, breaking out of a rut, and acting based off all appropriate information and acknowledgement of internal biases versus an external world through feedback. Air Force Colonel John Boyd is given the most credit for creation of this concept. His thinking behind it significantly altered businesses, military strategy, and even, litigation methodology. 

Quote from Wikipedia:

Boyd’s diagram shows that all decisions are based on observations of the evolving situation tempered with implicit filtering of the problem being addressed. These observations are the raw information on which decisions and actions are based. The observed information must be processed to orient it for further making a decision. In notes from his talk “Organic Design for Command and Control”, Boyd said,

The second O, orientation – as the repository of our genetic heritage, cultural tradition, and previous experiences – is the most important part of the O-O-D-A loop since it shapes the way we observe, the way we decide, the way we act.

From Mindtools - the first two concepts break out into questions one should ask themselves.

Stage 1. Observe

At this initial point in the loop, you should be on the look-out for new information, and need to be aware of unfolding circumstances. The more information you can take in here, the more accurate your perception will be. Like an F-86 pilot with a wide field of vision, you want to capture as much incoming data as possible. The kind of questions you need to be asking are:

• What's happening in the environment that directly affects me?
• What's happening that indirectly affects me?
• What's happening that may have residual affects later on?
• Were my predictions accurate?
• Are there any areas where prediction and reality differ significantly?

Stage 2. Orient

One of the main problems with decision-making comes at the Orient stage: we all view events in a way that's filtered through our own experiences and perceptions. Boyd identified five main influences:

• Cultural traditions.
• Genetic heritage.
• The ability to analyze and synthesize.
• Previous experience.
• New information coming in.

Orientation is essentially how you interpret a situation. This then leads directly to your decision. 

Interpretation of events is analysis or synthesis part. Previous experiences (conformation bias) leads to all sorts of unfortunate "processing errors" (called Decisions cum Actions) once we move on into the decision and action phases of the OODA loop. Even with feedback - as we can readjust our observations or orientations in REAL TIME - many don't.

I have often failed at this.  As a flawed human being, I have more than my fair share of biases and erroneous observations that have resulted in bad conclusions. Guilty as charged.

Sadly, many millions, and billions, do this also. Even those that proclaim what is right, and defend their ideas quite arrogantly - because, well - it behooves them to in order to maintain face, credentials as an "expert," their current control, or status in life. Or to keep things just the way they want it - heritage or tradition in the orientation - because who really wants to change anyways? We all want to feel we are good enough at present - even when we add more complexities or technologies or stuff into our lives?  (With an undergrad in "change" engineering, industrial, I found most workplaces saying all the right things, "we want things to improve, run better, cost less, be more competitive," but somehow this also meant, someone's job or career would invariably be altered, or cut out from the team or reduced in some way. As a result, creative destruction is apart of any such cycle. It's also called a dirty word: progress.)

The Synthesis of These Connections

Synthesis of these two topics together: I am feeling caught in orientation traps unable to DECIDE what is the best path ahead. I know it. My prior experiences say, "what gives now?" How do I take a route I haven't been on before? Because those have worked out so well - insanity doing the same.

Observe. The world is not getting easier to stomach as it is. The facility in this country to seek some version of the American Dream correlates to how adept one is/becomes with an accelerating technological path at home, or abroad. At 42, I don't feel that's my best use of my time: to dive head long in technology field. Namely, I am no coder; no app writer; and not one that's gonna make a mark writing code in whatever programming language is gonna be hot. Not saying it has to be "totally" about that - but you still have to find your place in that technology pie. And get on the inside somewhere.

Yet, I feel I can identify the useful mechanisms to improve myself, and more importantly: society.

So, at 42, I don't want to operate at all on a "should schedule" unless I get a whole new life experience from that.  By that, I mean, I don't want a 9-5 that (maybe) pays high XX,XXX dollars or devolves into me showing up at the same plant or factory for 2 years. Because that's the sheer limit of my patience - 2 years. I get restless very easy. And I can't afford to jump ship (probabilistically) anymore.

Orientation. Independence. I want that too. We are told erroneously we all have our bosses. Well, aside from God, I tend to feel I have to answer to no one. That means I deem society's rules just a mish-mash of current propensities to favor whatever is the most vocally expressed and the most convenient for a politician to vote on to keep the masses mildly contented, at best. And most superiors found at work are generally hypocritical and loyal only to themselves - if Ayn Rand had remotely a clue. (Not that I agree much at all with her dogmas.)

But, I think I can follow the minimal, 'big rules': don't kill, don't steal, covet a neighbor's wife, and don't bear false witness. Do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you. Honor a father and a mother. Well, 50% ain't that bad on that particular one. The other rules of 'humanity' are getting really tired and unfortunate in their concept and usages. And depending on where you are - and yes, culturally, the rules are starkly different if you have the slightest concept of the globalized world - the rules and values are pretty fungible. To succeed in one cultural arena likely means you are doing some wrong in another part of the world. Keep that straight for a while, and you'll find yourself doing what others want more than you want. (As the movie Road Trip taught us about cheating.)

At Valpo, they implored us to explore values-based leadership. Well a few of my values are: loyalty, honesty (bluntness), invested, and determination. Once you show I can depend on you, I am loyal to you, almost to a fault. Quite a few people in my life haven't understood this about me to their loss. (As they became undependable for support; or sadly, I gave them too much loyalty before they were dependable on too many occasions - such are the erroneous judgments that abound my life.)

I am damnably blunt - I don't think beating around the bush, or using PC language helps us understand the way the world works or addresses the crises very well at all. Invested in doing better, or time on something to get it better (not perfection), and locked on a path, a direction, of some redeemable nature. Determination - if persistence and perseverance can't win, well, nothing can aside from divine intervention can. So be determined to accomplish a good goal. Maybe God will too.

Stage 3 Decide.

 I look at it in this calculated way. We sleep or rest 1/3 of our life away.

As of now, if I live to 70 - 28 more years - I got about 18 plus years of wake time left to do something I think will survive me. 20 years, if I don't sleep in too much. If 80 years of age, that puts me at 25 plus years. So, should I do more than half of it working for some monolithic company, knowing, as I know, once I die, my efforts with them will be basically a blur, a forgotten, an unnoticed cog? (Maybe a retirement dinner - ha!)

Leaving me with less than 10 years of time to accomplish much else? (Mom, and both her parents, passed away at 59-64 years of age. So, I am being quite generous - OODA genetics and heritage, folks!)

I realize I could start a family. Well, she hasn't presented herself to me. I've looked, and I've waited too. Time's a wasting on that idea. I'd like to have a couple of kids. Teach baseball. Would even be a stay-at-home dad, if she desires to be the "career person," my ego will not be crushed. (This doesn't mean I am lazy...) I suppose she'd have to love me first. Applications are taken here.

Stage 4 Action. 

See, I do have many more thoughts, in book form. I'd rather do that instead - if for nothing else - to somehow leave a record on things I noticed: history, people, the journey, love and the mysterious sadness of it all too. Sadly too, the book market ain't gonna pay the bills. So, I asked myself: "what is the minimal amount of money I need to do what I want, but still survive?" Or: "What can I do that I can work 3-4-5 months and get enough out of, then spend 6 months writing and researching?" Or: "Should I get a PhD in Business? (4 years of school on a stipend with the dissertation to complete? Can I even get accepted? This delays the decision of what to really do too.)

I'd like feedback - from my outside environment, my peers, the external events that could lead to other choices.

   

Where Are They Now: Melana Scantlin of Average Joe v. Life Love

Melana Scantlin: Then on Average Joe

A little over 10 years have past, and the craze of reality TV has ramped up a bit from the days of Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor, Average Joe, and the "grand Puck" of the genre, The Real World. The Real Housewives, Jersey Shore, Survivor, and too many others have turned the genre into a whack-a-doodle, oh-no-she-didn't-uh integrity-less food fight for ratings and audacious behaviors. But back a decade, some limits and slight decorum existed. A social psychology experiment, if you will.

For instance, the premise of Average Joe was to get ordinary Joes dating and marrying "up" to extraordinary looking women. It pitted former beauty queens, Melanie Scantlin and Larissa Meek, versus a trove of ordinary guys that soon faced the ideal male: those that work on pecks and their tans well and guys who usually land these inherently, socially pretty women. 

In the inaugural season, Ms. Scantlin did not use her final selection wisely: if you were comparing the successes of Adam Mesh versus Jason Peoples. On one hand, Adam did not look the part of a successful trader and owner on The Street; whereas, Jason Peoples, looked awesome, but was not particularly well off, or successful in his life, then. Melana judged, or at least, picked a book by its cover. That cover selection turned out to never fulfilled her needs.

Meanwhile, Adam later published a book on trading, and still runs a website that is about investing.  Later, he got married in 2006. His turn on the show boded well enough.

Melana Scantlin has went on to be a host of the World Series of Blackjack, and works for E!TV/Hollywoodlife.com, as I found out just today in reviewing the Emmy Awards on Youtube. (This was why I wrote this post.)

In the world of 'Reality TV' this is the normal ending. The parties never stay together. If anything, its just a stepping stone to something else for them, or the 15 minutes of Warholian fame. The show too becomes part of the recycling bin of Hollywood where it will be revamped and hurled at the next generation. The where are they now? posts, like this one, usually end here.

But I am here to provide advice and a lesson demonstrated via the wits of academia and my own logic.

Scantlin is yet to tie the knot- and she's now in her mid-30s. While not a huge problem for her - she hosts exercise shows and blurbs and looks in good health - it seems ironic that the lead, is yet to find the right one. Scantlin, who according to Florida State professor and psychologist Roy F. Baumeister and Ohio State professor in psychology and communications Brad J. Bushman, "wanted to meet and marry a man with good inner qualities (324)," but has yet to do so. In their academic book on Social Psychology and Human Nature, the professors went into further detail on Melana's quirks of choosing:

"she had eliminated every man weighing over 200 pounds. Meanwhile, one man clearly regarded himself as better looking...and this narcissistic fellow engaged in a variety of bullying and putdowns that made most regard him as a jerk, but Melana went out of her way to convince herself that he was not a jerk...she was seen lying on the floor with the narcissistic fellow with arms around each other, kissing passionately."

The attraction of two people comes down to physical, emotional (or mood), and spiritual (philosophical) aspects. It is natural to find instant attraction with the eyes - many of us are visual-first creatures. Some though go further, and adapt better to those whose outward mood or spirit is lively or in sync with theirs, despite obvious physical disparities. Lastly, philosophical mirroring or acceptance takes a while to find out. Certainly longer and more in-depth than the Reality TV time frame. Additionally, social acceptance means people have come to like you, respect you, approve of you, and include them in their groups and relationships. While rejection means other(s) exclude you and will not form a social bond with you. Again, the reality show time frame make this a cruel game of excluding based on the lowest denominator of selection: that which we see through eyes only.

So what makes a person attractive for a mate?

As the professors intone, "Melana Scantlin may someday recognize, is that the traits that make someone attractive upon first meeting are not the same traits that make for a successful relationship."

Melana Scantlin may have learned this advice. But I suspect fear or inability to adapt towards a different trek may have taken place. (I don't know her; so she may be in a committed, if unannounced, relationship.)
But if she had, I suspect she would make it public enough. It did not stop her participation a decade ago in a very public display of both her and the men that sought an opportunity to date and build something with her.

Nevertheless, what we thought then is not necessarily what we think now, and so, it should be remembered: things change and we do change with them, if just in the march of time. And not all that glitters turns into gold.

Many times, it is pretty average.

The Wolf of Wall Street: A Fun Ride Up Until the End

Jordan Belfort's The Wolf of Wall Street book must be a scream. I remember browsing the title a few years ago, but got distracted by something else, probably not Margot Robbie, who plays Leonardo DeCaprio's trophy 2nd wife. Nope, I could never be this tone deaf and drug-addled as this Wall Street bucket shop story lead is throughout.

The premise is easy: man goes to Wall Street; guy learns bad habits on Wall Street from Matthew McConaughey; guy gets dumped off Wall Street; guy finds he can make it, on his own version of Wall Street with all the addictions and money to support his growing addictive habits. The legality of it, well, that's dependent on how long he can go on doing crazy and illegal shit, pumping and dumping, before the SEC or FBI nab him and his merry band of derelicts-make-good.

It's funny as hell, if your a man that lacks excitement in your life. Women, not exactly a PSA for marrying a stock jobber that is pressure-selling stocks for all those pricey commissions. These guys are Animal House, type-A with insecurities a magnificent mile long paved over with greenbacks and tons of blow. Even though a few ladies are working in this egomaniac-driven world, we don't get to see them search for crazier drugged out ways to spend obscene amounts of cash.

To get through a workday is all about the drugs you use and the quantities you pump them in to get the next deal done, or the next hooker off. Sometimes the separation is just an elevator ride between. Time is everything to these Masters of the Universe wannabes.

It feels like one criminal blur on screen - of very amoral decisions that keep on being rewarded until the Virginia farm boys (FBI) start a hounding. Then, Belfort takes to inviting them up to show off his lobsters and his women and his legal knowledge about bribery. FBI man (the once-too-nice-of-a-guy Kyle Chandler) plays along. Belfort, and his less than intellectually brilliant, but extremely codependent drug partner (fabulously played by Jonah Hill), just don't get it. 

They just play on. They go out of their way to do more crime. Make it international. Have really no compass - lost that back in the 1980s, if they had it then. And are willing to destroy all those around them, as the ugly truth hits hard at home for Belfort. Not even hot trophies want to go down with the ship of fools. They know the cash is out and the jig is up.

And so, the Wolf is finally at bay. He did some country club time; and came back to life akin to Michael Milken, as the successful motivational speaker. Yep, would you do 22 months for his wild life? 

If you asked 100 men without families, or great looking and morally supportive wives, you'd get 75 yeses. You'd be able to sell it - the stock life, and the pen (penitentiary), too. 

3 hours of DiCaprio looking the part of a sex, drugs, and money addicted conning genius that lost his way ---for 22 months. The Wolf howls.

 

The Minor Model and the Chicago Cubs: It Still Comes Down to Money, Honey

The Minor Model and the Chicago Cubs: It Still All Comes Down Money, Honey

The Present and Past: The Minor Model to World Series Success

The model Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer have sold the last two seasons to the faithful Cubs fan is one of small and varied investments and flipping short-term assets to achieve a top-notch minor league system. Every now, and again, mentioning the Cardinals, almost harkening the ghost of Branch Rickey, when he too built the Cardinals from a derelict franchise to the World Champions of the NL in 1926. Then Branch moved on to the Dodgers in 1942 – creating the Jackie Robinson-led Dodger way – and then, Pittsburgh and their rebirth in the late 1950s to league prominence with the likes of Mazeroski, Groat, and Clemente.
It took Branch approximately seven seasons to build the Cardinals to champions. After World War I ended in November 1918, he came back to the struggling and financially troubled National League team. First, he tried his hand at field management, primarily, to only middling success. But it was his destined role as a general manager that help the Cardinals the most as he bought out low level minor league teams and installed new methods (or revived old ones) to get more quality from that new found and harnessed quantity in farm systems. By 1939, his Cardinals had 28 affiliated teams. 1940: 30 teams. 1940 Cubs: 6 including the LA Angels and the Milwaukee Brewers (soon to be owned by William Veeck for $25,000.)
This model does have the long-term result of working. Others have tried this…some better than others, as at some point, money has to be employed, large trades, better scouting, and revenues increase to make a final push to the top of the league.

Baltimore Orioles: Paul Richards & Jim McLaughlin

The defunct Browns/new Baltimore Orioles succeeded with GM/field manager Paul Richards took the reins, but only after he built them up through various trades, better evaluation and a new stadium produced good attendance. From SABR Bioproject:

He traded the Orioles’ lone star, fireballer Bob Turley, to the Yankees in a seventeen-player deal that was the largest in big league history. The trade brought the Orioles an eventual all-star catcher in Gus Triandos, while Turley helped the Yankees win the 1955 pennant and won the first Cy Young Award three years later. When local sportswriters and fans complained that Richards had handed the Yankees another pennant, he responded, “What concern is it of mine who wins the pennant? I need to get the Orioles out of seventh place.”
It took him six years to lift the Orioles above .500, but he stuck to his plan: build through the farm system, concentrating on young pitchers. He kept the scouting and farm director he inherited, Jim McLaughlin. Although the two arrogant, stubborn men squabbled constantly, it was the best decision Richards ever made. McLaughlin believed in a scientific approach to appraising young players. He was one of the first to use cross-checkers to put a second pair of eyes on every prospect. One of his scouts, Jim Russo, said McLaughlin was “years ahead of his time.”

Richards moved on Houston before the Baby Birds flew; his prospects and bonus babies landed their 1st big league championship in 1966. From 1964-1983, the Orioles won 90+ games 16 times.

 

Montreal Expos: John McHale, Jim Fanning, Mel Didier

While Richards took over Bill Veeck’s first defeat in ownership, McHale came from the commissioner’s office to Canada as lead executive to billionaire Charles Bronfrom to build a franchise from scratch. Like Richards, McHale had to find money when and where available and make trades to go with likely the best decade of drafting seen at the outset of a franchise. Their first star, Rusty Staub, came to Montreal through a trade controversy that stirred around Donn Clendenon, who refused to report to New York Mets in what would be their championship year.
Thereafter, McHale, general manager Fanning and director of scouting Mel Didier found the likes of Steve Rogers, Gary Carter, Warren Cromartie, Andre Dawson, Tim Wallach, and Ellis Valentine, and Tim Raines to name the well known names of 1970s. With enormous stadium issues at the outset, and mediocre attendance due to those struggles and sterility, it took Montreal 11 seasons to crack into the top tier of the National League. And then, they fell short in 1981 in game five of the NLCS to the LA Dodgers.

 

Cubs Finances: Baseball LBO

Is the model for success a one-route only plan?
In the prior examples, all during very different financial times (Pre-free agency), making a successful team hinged on judicious use of resources, expert and differentiating scouting, and signing players more as prospects than ever as finished products. An incubation period of 5-7 years was a given; no matter how much a team wanted to win now, that could not happen. That said, the 2014
Cubs are not that destitute. Or at least, they should not be.
But when the ownership changed hands from Sam Zell to Tom Ricketts, and his family of board directors, a substantial debt load too was placed on the team, by  business reports $674 million in notes. In 2010, in their first season, as full owners, they reduced payroll by $10 million, overcame some bad press about their Dominican Republic facilities (and thus put a $7 million investment into that area), and then put together a future plan to succeed at baseball. Their private investors likely required that – due to their heavy backing of the team, which was just in the playoffs two straight seasons. (But likely no nothing of the game…)
From Crane’s Chicago Business, January 4, 2010, calling this Creative Debt:

Mr. Ricketts and his financial advisers brought in institutional investors — such as insurance companies, pension funds and banks — to refinance $250 million in short-term debt provided by three banks, according to a Ricketts family spokesman….
Documents related to the deal, reviewed by Crain’s, provide a glimpse into how Mr. Ricketts, an investment banker who specializes in debt markets, orchestrated the highly complex deal, creating an unusual structure at a time when credit markets were nearly inert.

So, to make this leverage work, the Chicago Cubs needed to follow a plan that maximized returns to the investors in their debt. In 2012 payroll paid dropped to $80.4M from $136M. In 2013, the amount dropped to $61.6M. Added up from the 2011 near peak: 56 + 75 = $131 million in saved monies to meet $175million term loan in October 2013. The plan revised further with Theo Epstein’s arrival to be:

The Steps (in no particular order):

• Cut payroll – and stop large investments in top-tier FA contracts as debt service was needed first
• Find the right baseball man to rebuild the team (Theo Epstein & Jed Hoyer)
• Draft in top 5-10 for several seasons. This after making only half-hearted attempts to win
• Secure low-risk FAs that could be traded mid-season
• Trade away any high priced assets for younger controllable talent
• Renovate Wrigley Field for $300-500M- amenities to ballpark functionality for ballplayers once revenues are in place
• Renegotiate local TV contracts on the level of the Rangers, Dodgers, Angels deals
• Remove obstacles to revenues – Rooftop ownerships cutting into their business
• Add new revenue streams – advertising, signage, hotel operations
• Build up minor league scouting and development system
• Build up front office staffing well versed in business analytical techniques and sabermetrics
• Install a field manager that operates well with the leadership at the top
• Never pay out long-term deals (4+ years) to free agents over 30
• Sign young talent (22-24) to longer-term deals (5-7 years) once they are proven capable
• Draft top bats – less risk; add quantity of pitching in drafting
• Trade for top-tier pitching when timing suits the plan

A big chunk of that debt came due in October 2013, $175 million. It is likely was paid down via sinking funds to retire debt in short order. $13.65 million of payroll savings in 2013 season made its way back to the Cubs as they did a massive sell off mid-season when they were no worse record wise than the National West champion Dodgers in just early June.
The Sun-Times quoted Andrew Zimbalist, an expert on baseball economics:

“He’s behaving like he’s a mid-market team,” famed sports economist Andrew Zimbalist said of Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts, whose family owns the most profitable team in the majors in the third-largest market in the country.
In terms of their timeline to be competitive, the Cubs could have a problem because their mid-market behavior appears to be caused as much by the debt left from the Ricketts’ highly leveraged purchase of the team as any premeditated rebuilding process.
Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College in Northampton, Mass., cautions against using baseball spending levels as a basis for criticizing ownership, pointing out the light correlation between performance and payroll and what might be nothing more than a function of a longer-range business plan.

 

A Minor Setback: FO Change of Managerial Direction

So, after two completely disastrous seasons of 197 defeats, resulting in the firing manager Dale Sveum, one can expect that new manager Rick Renteria will have at least two more seasons before their substantially promoted crop of minor talent comes to change the 106-107 year old curse.  Renteria’s seemingly first duty is to reverse the regressions of Anthony Rizzo and Starlin Castro from their quite disappointing 2013 seasons for Cubs faithful. He will have also set out to install a winning approach, with a team lacking vets, aside from Jeff Samardzija, the lone holdover from the 2008 97-win Cubs, or Edwin Jackson, coming off a sabermetrically decent, but traditionally bad season.  The new manager may find Samardzija gone, as the Notre Dame grad wants to a pricier extension, and to cash in on his first 200-IP season at two years before free agency. His demands may drive him out of a Chicago job; or the front office might find prospects more appealing than keeping a nearing thirty #2 pitcher with #1 velocity.  Even Jackson’s 4yr-$52 million FA contract has resulted in some backtracking too from the GM Jed Hoyer, saying, “we got a bit ahead of ourselves.” At the end of the day, newbie manager Renteria has his work cut out for him.
Yet, these installers of this Minor Model want to keep Cubs fans interested and thinking they will be competitive going forward. This after losing about 650,000 fans in 2013 from their peak at 3.3 million in 2008. At $50 per head, this is $32.5 million in revenues lost. But, never fear, the new MLB TV deal(s) will add over $25-75 million (depending on source of income) to the coffers starting in 2014. But then, the Cubs still kick in approximately $39 million to revenue sharing. And then more importantly, only insiders know the actual size of debt repayments (installments) and if the ghost of Sam Zell is floating around in the books too.
Sidetracking the critics, are reports of interest in uber pitching free agent Masahiro Tanaka, at least a 100-plus million dollar investment in just ONE arm, seem overblown, given the cost structures in place. Jacoby Ellsbury, a Theo draftee, would be another high price add, that the checking account is unlikely to pry open so wide that Scott Boras and Ellsbury are ever seen in Wrigley proper. But “interest” can be had at the low price of free. And it keeps fans hoping one day will be today.

 

The 7-Year Wait: Adds to the 106 Year Old Cubs Tradition

So, what should be next? From history, it takes 5-7 years, at minimum, to reach critical mass for a successful baseball build. The 1962 Mets did it in seven seasons; the Toronto Blue Jays reach playoffs in nine seasons, World Series, 15. Florida Marlins only five, then a massive sell off of assets. The Montreal Expos were a decade plus, but had Olympic Stadium and Canadian monetary issues to boot. Tampa Bay Rays made it to a World Series in a decade. Baltimore took a decade. Rickey, the absolute master, took five years with a team that had just visited the World Series in Brooklyn (1941). (But he had the misfortune of trying to usurp his former employer.)
So, Cubs faithful, this Minor Model will require much more sacrifice. Much more time. 2017 is, at best, the first window. The revenues will come on line. Financing will be redone again by the expert investment banker. The prospects named Javier Baez, Kris Bryant, Albert Almora, and C.J. Edwards will make their presence felt. Maybe a couple of trades in late 2013/early 2014 will land catcher Kevin Plawecki, RHP Rafael Montero, LHP Tyler Skaggs, or RHP Archie Bradley, or RHP Kyler Zimmer. Or some other interesting names in the top 50 of Baseball America’s ranking.
No one outside the minor plan in place can estimate who else is available for trade exodus – but the Cubs team is leaned out because the finances are at the very heart of it. So, patience is a virtue Cubs faithful. It has to be.

Related articles

• Report: Cubs expected to trade Jeff Samardzija this winter (outsidepitchmlb.com)
• Cubs Ranked 5th Best Farm System, White Sox 25th (chicago.cbslocal.com)
• Report: 99 percent chance Cubs will trade Jeff Samardzija by Opening Day (tracking.si.com)
• Cubs should sign Jacoby Ellsbury (espn.go.com)

2014 Baseball HOF Class: A new system, a non-moral standard devised

Greg Maddux: Dealing from HOF Strength

 My Current 2014 HOF Class Selections and Reasons:

Greg Maddux - wins aside, he compiled a healthy WAR in his career. Won on great teams, and the Cubs. 1st ballot is a no brainer.
Tom Glavine - same token on wins (305-203). He benefited from a wider strike zone and used it to great advantage. Teammates should go in together - John Smoltz will join soon enough.

(Edit and Note: Baseball Reference has Tom at 74.0 WAR using Runs Allowed method; Fangraphs (based off FIP, which is weighted on underlying metrics such as Ks, BB, HRs) has him at 64.3 WAR. At Fangraphs, Tom had 12 seasons above 3 WAR, with low strikeouts per IP lifetime, and 3.95 FIP ERA, whereas his actual ERA was 3.54 and his lifetime BABIP was a very favorable .280. To me, if you can stick around to pitch 14 years of 200+ IP, that is Hall worthy in the teeth of the prevalent offensive boom. He was able to parlay all that from a pitching platform of not getting all those juicy Ks while keeping it in the ball in the park. Craftiness in this case, deserves such a reward.)

Roger Clemens - controversial now, but no doubt, the most dominating guy on the bump in either league for many seasons.
Mike Mussina - a very, very consistent guy. Pitched solely out of the AL East, and amassed both a substantial standard record (270-153) and quality sabermetrics record (82.7 WAR at Baseball Reference). 
Curt Shilling - as outspoken against guys like Clemens, he got it done when it mattered. A money pitcher, who now has, less money (due to a bad business investment.)
Barry Bonds - Best hitter of his generation. Not really even that close. (See below.) Never suspended for PEDs, even while he was playing under close monitoring. His legacy as a bad guy (and interview) pretty much relegates him to being on the outside looking in. Pete Rose is his much lighter-hitting companion.
Larry Walker - Colorado was the best thing for his numbers. That said, he was a damn good hitter. Very good RF for a number of seasons, and it is not his fault, anymore than it was Ott's or Ruth's, that he destroyed his home haven.
Mike Piazza - He compiled a .300+ BA as a catcher for a career. Slugging, check. He was no gold glover, but he put on the tools of ignorance, and proved you can survive there for a decade plus.
Craig Biggio - Assured inclusion this time. 3000 hits. Those counting stats, his overall production, at 2B and versatility is his ticket to Cooperstown.
Edgar Martinez - As mostly a DH, he still played over 500 games as a 3B. Wore out pitchers with .418 OBP, routinely 40 doubles, 20 jacks, and 90 walks. Team construction in Seattle was not his fault; he could have been a 1B for, at least, 500 games if the Mariners didn't constantly add the David Seguis or John Oleruds of the world to the equation. But DH was available. And he was lethally suited for the role.

Edgar Martinez: A .418 OBP Machine.

From Fangraphs the Entire List Eligible for the Hall by Their WAR Calculation:

Name	WAR
Barry Bonds*	164.1
Roger Clemens*	139.9
Greg Maddux*	114.3
Curt Schilling*	83.5
Mike Mussina*	82.3
Jeff Bagwell	80.3
Frank Thomas	72.4
Rafael Palmeiro	70.0
Larry Walker*	69.0
Tim Raines	66.3
Mark McGwire	66.3
Edgar Martinez*	65.6
Craig Biggio*	65.3
Tom Glavine*	63.9
Alan Trammell	63.7
Mike Piazza*	63.6
Sammy Sosa	60.4
Fred McGriff	57.2
Jeff Kent	56.6
Luis Gonzalez	55.3
Jack Morris	52.7
Moises Alou	48.2
Kenny Rogers	47.2
Don Mattingly	40.7
Ray Durham	30.3
Lee Smith	27.6
Hideo Nomo	24.0
Paul Lo Duca	17.8
Richie Sexson	17.2
Sean Casey	16.1
Jacque Jones	13.1
Mike Timlin	13.1
J.T. Snow	12.6
Eric Gagne	11.9
Todd Jones	11.2
Armando Benitez	9.0

Baseball writers with their precious votes will not agree with me. I'm right on these selections, this year.

You may notice I selected the top 5 WAR producers, specifically Bonds and Clemens outpaced their compatriots in the game by a wide margin. But neither will get in because of the turmoil of the PED scandal. The sportswriters, who are voting, are like women who just got cheated on, or dumped for a hotter woman, or divorced from their once well-loved husband after he cheated on her with a less attractive option (this happens in real life, unlike Hollywood.) They duly want revenge; want groveling; and a measure of superiority over these selfish louts called baseball players.

Meanwhile, Maddux is the 'faithful' one; and he's the surest lock there is in this entire group.

After Mussina, there is gap. I jump down to Walker, Biggio, Martinez, Glavine, and Piazza. For good reasons: Walker is an lifetime RF, who distinguished himself enough with the glove and stuck at the position even in his twilight. Biggio played catcher, centerfield, left field and second base.  That's versatility, especially going from a catcher, to speed positions, and deserves its due. Piazza - catcher, primarily - was a hitting machine. Martinez, again, played the hot corner and raked. Glavine as discussed above.

So all of these are more worthy than Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Fred McGriff, Jeff Bagwell, or Don Mattingly. Or even the sentimental choice in Jack Morris (who I really do like - but well...Veteran's committee can do that).

Tim Raines looks the part until you realize he amassed more than half of his WAR in just 5 seasons (1983-1987). This is not problematic, per say, but look at his 1990s. Does that speak HOF? He might get in around 2017, or a bit later. He too has character issues from those white lines that nabbed guys like Lonnie Smith in the 1980s.

So, the remaining six I left out are all 1B/DH types. If you look up their numbers they have various ranges, but if I showed you a .298/.385/.520 lifetime statistical line, could you guess which one is above or below that? And by how much?

• Would you punish Palmeiro for not being a peak guy - but a consistent 35-110 guy with good OBP, but burdened with the 1st HOF career tied to a steroids suspension? 

• Or Frank Thomas for poor defense and solely a DH in his twilight? 
• Or McGwire for those 2-3 enormous seasons, but poor batting average/above average OBP, but lights out great slugging? 
• Or Fred McGriff's stats compiled in the pre-1993 era of the non-juiced baseball and steroids? Why not some love for the Crime Dog? 
• Or Jeff Bagwell who hit darn well in that old Houston Astrodome, walls moved in a touch (.303/.421/.536), but also got some benefits out of the Juice Box in Minute Maid...He deserves it by WAR alone. But again, I have problems with that sole measure - adjustments for positions made to that calculation aside.

So, I was not going to split hairs over this huge grouping, this year. I think 3-4 first sackers are worthy of inclusion someday, maybe in 2015-16. But those above I selected, to me, had the virtual locks by the positions played and stats achieved.

1B, again, is not the hardest position to play. It is the easiest. It is why all of these guys got huge numbers there. A 1B with a .500 plus slugging and a .375OBP is about All-star level/HOF worthy if we turned back the clock to the 1960s and 1970s. And these guys aside from McGriff and Mattingly benefited from the juiced ball theory I feel people constantly leave out of their equations. (And yes, Walker had plenty of juice in his ballpark - Colorado set the humidor conditions wrong, initially. Furthering the point of a 'juiced ball' era.)

But I had 10 votes, and took my logical 10 based on performances, position criteria, and differentiation from the pack. I could not immediately see clear reasons why any first sackers should be in over the rest of my selections, this year. And that speaks to the problem of the HOF.

The Non-Moral Argument to the Baseball HOF

Meanwhile, I think it's uniquely disturbing that people base their votes on baseball's HOF, which, in theory, is about best performers while in the game - statistically speaking - and not at all about the best human beings.

If we want a HOF of good characters, high integrity, blah, blah blah, THEN we should start anew and have a separate, and new HOF. I only say "blah, blah, blah," because what defines this quality is amorphic as to what era you judge it from.

• Is late 19th century baseball operating morality code than disallowed minorities, improperly hued, the baseline?
•  Is it the mid-1930s version of this code, upon creating this special grouping of HOF players, voted on by well-known sportswriters like Grantland Rice, who was fairly overt in his racism, the next hurdle?
• Is it the mid-20th century, that still didn't have too much problem with boozing, womanizing, or drugging, even if it were known (as media access often required a Gee Whiz Sports writing), our next leap?
• Is subtle cheating (spitters, frozen balls, amphetamines popping) from the 1960s-1970s ok to do, if they were 'good' guys according the new media guys, who picked out their favorites?
• Or is the 1990s tinkering with the ball, pumping iron, shrinking ballparks, growing paychecks and swelling, 'roided muscles the creme brulee we should talk from, if sportswriters wrote more positive pieces, and trumpeted the stats we wanted to hear about?
• Maybe we politically correct all discussions? Because we know what is right, now?

Roger: Dodger of PED suspensions

Whatever you do, it should be consistent and fair and simple. That is why the ONLY measure is what took place between the lines. Call me what you will, I am not going to parse out which guy is a better human being based on sportswriter's vendettas, or dislikes, or run-ins with ballplayers that are human and flawed.

Trying to elaborately devise a methodology to test all ballplayers retroactively - is he a steroid witch or not - without a 100% fool proof PED test in the present, seems oddly hopeless to my way of thinking about it.

If you technically were never caught with PEDs in your bloodstream by MLB, as Bonds NEVER was suspended, even after the first PED suspensions on April 3, 2005 came out, then how can you logically dismiss him now? Because he's an obstructionist of justice? Or a liar?

You can despise him all you like, but you should be consistent on your analysis, else you travel a slippery slope...it is the reason we have a messed up HOF, as it stands now. And those, that were overlooked until they died, i.e., Ron Santo (70.9 fWAR).

What happens on the field is one arena; and what happens in life outside the final out is quite another.

President Bill Clinton. most historians consider him a 1st-2nd tier president, if you look at that logically. But his womanizing does not make him as appealing as a human being, at least as he left the office, nearly impeached. Bill lied about his relationships... JFK. God rest, had the same issues with women, and is praised more out of respect more than accomplishment. FDR. Women issues to the very end, and still top 5-7 U.S. Presidents. And that list can go on, and on. Their accomplishments in their expert field should not be undermined by their flawed human relationships. Because, then, many of us need to reassess our very nature.

But this method is also how you can divorce one criteria from another. Because what a guy does to achieve success in one arena, should not be tied to what he does outside that arena, even if, it allegedly helps him to achieve undue results. Because until we know the direct amount of help, we are just surmising based on broad premises we barely understand the science and results behind.

Social Media & Personal Responsibility

I think too, ALL of us today, have tended to blend our lives into this social media petri dish for all to see online. It leads us to sometimes believe that our sports stars, even when they are eagerly willing (in tweeting), are really just like us, only richer, and therefore, available for our personal chidings. That their failings are fun, consumable pieces of information and thus require our witty commentaries. And so, these typically labeled 'special people' behave accordingly, lying, lashing out, and fighting back against being this pinata of social critique, often as not, without the entire story behind their lives as a sports icon/athlete. And their failings, very public in nature, as any athletes or entertainer will undoubtedly succumb to, someday, will outstrip or trump their glories. So they MUST super achieve constantly. No room for actual humanity in that equation. "We don't pay you for that," a fan now very aware of the billion dollar nature of the beast - often to the nickel - responds with derision.

This is wrong. 100% dead wrong.

Or, more recently, such athletes are held to some very high/higher moral standards because of their public nature. (Thank marketing for that - and those advertising revenues generated.) Again, this is totally wrong. That type of social norm (depending on where you live in this world applies differently, as not people see things like alike) applies really to an athlete's basic privilege of playing the game. They are not paid for moral decisions or likeability, or should not be. You don't pay a neurologist for tax advice. You don't pay a plumber for his translation skills if he was at the United Nations. And you don't pay athletes for their personal life choices - aside for those to which they agree to. (And even that was once heavily weighted to the ownership class, and their agents (GMs), in baseball's case. Instead of a fair contract, they got a lopsided deal until 1976. Since then, the owners have been looking to circumvent gains made; were guilty of collusion in the 1980s; and waited, patiently, to spring to action on the recent steroids scandal. Don't be fooled, they knew.)  

But to want to affect change or to stop this problem, those ownerships could have suspended these athletes "1-and-done" AND paid off their remaining contracts, foregoing any future playing benefits. (If the MLBPA would have collectively bargained away such rights. Player reps would have to convince their cohorts it is best for the game.) That measure would have rid any acquisition of "cheaters" - as we saw with recent healthy contracts for Marlon Byrd, Jhonny Peralta, and likely now, Nelson Cruz. Or you, the rabid fan, can stop going to all games involving any and all unethical louts that set a bad examples - and tell your kids all about the right way to be in the game. Until those examples are set, we should corral our MORAL HIGH HORSE. Because we are not making a very strong case to stop such behaviors by our own ethical hypocrisy. If anything, we undermine the premise "cheating is bad" by rewarding it later with high contracts (which too have their risks, but until you stop the practice, it does not show any ethical commitment.)

But I don't think that's the answer to the problem. It's draconian and arbitrary and even, the appeals will be lengthy, and the evidence has to reach the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. No, the question to answer rightly is HOF performance, solely.  It side steps the issue of enhancements. Because it is only about what it takes on the field...

The NEW Hall of Fame: A Trial by Stats

As suggested, the Hall of Fame is a different matter. Because moral judgments are inherently flawed, and biased by a personal value system. So we need a set criteria based on a thorough system.

You see, you will have selection bias, and select only information that matters to you, and discard the rest. I acknowledge I am guilty of it (see my choices), and even if you say you are not, then you are, actually. (You are human and flawed. And therefore, at some moment you have been biased solely by your limited amount of time to gather complete understanding of a person/or situation/or object. We make generalities to survive, else we would drive ourselves nuts. Therefore, you are biased.)

I suggest a new system based solely on numerical analysis. Adjusted to the standards of the offensive eras created within that system. Does not overvalue one era, or group, over any another. It will be sabermetric-based; detailed in its analysis; and ties directly to statistics and inflicts as little personal bias as any system can designed by such flawed humans. Therefore, if set correctly, only the highest level of achievement will be praised.

Of course, the current HOF has prestige. But old institutions outlast their usefulness, and new ones come along. This will happen in baseball like OBP replaced BA; xFIP has replaced ERA; WAR replaced any statistical variant that incorporated a hodge-podging of RBI, HR, SB, W, ERA, IP, or Runs. It inevitably comes. It will again.

We love asterisks, it seems. So, we will include a review of all that achieve the level of HOF, but is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a panel of baseball experts of enhancement by strictly artificial means, doping, cheating in baseball, amphetamines, if any of these or obviously artificial methods seems most prevalent to their statistical accumulation, outside the ways we know existed in all eras. (Read: not sportswriters, but historians and analysts that take each reported case up as if they were the U.S. Supreme Court. I'd personally say a rotating group of 9 fellows at this new HOF. Two-year review cycle - and therefore, an appeal by said HOF candidate, to present evidence to overturn a "guilty" opinion. In essence, a fair review where a player (or his legal representative) can produce contrary/mitigating evidence that refutes or colors a "guilty by enhancement" ruling.)

Even then, those of guilt will just be included with the dreaded asterisk. We don't apply this without logic to new HOF. New system, analyzing a far different game across seven scores of time (140 years) means I am not allowing the current/ongoing scandal to ruin this HALL at the start.

Managers and other worthy candidates will be under a different methodology, yet to be determined here.

That's my baseball HOF rant.