OnlyBucs

Trends are important too, not just an overall tally. I see it as a slow, moderate rise and then a stumble. Now has this setback temporary or a sign of how things "really" are? I don't know but I'm getting worried.

6E5C50504476555C51545B5C3D0 wrote: Trends are important too, not just an overall tally.  I see it as a slow, moderate rise and then a stumble.  Now has this setback temporary or a sign of how things "really" are?  I don't know but I'm getting worried.


Yes, better way to put it. At this point in time, I think (opinion) Huntington has done more good than bad. Sure, that can change. I too am getting close to the worried state.

373C34383D3C276264132A323B3C3C7D303C530 wrote:



Still it seems a little picky/choosy to tag the successes as lucky while also saying that fails are all incompetence.   




I agree with this 100%.



NH should be credited with both successes and failures as a result of his decision making. He's been on the job long enough that we shouldn't be saying his good decisions were due to luck and his bad decisions were due to incompetence.



It's very hard to quantify what specific decisions are based on luck as opposed to competency.



So, there's a much simpler formula that I choose to use in order to quantify everything:



Wins and losses at the major league level.



Three winning seasons out of ten means that the cumulative decisions that are being made are not good.



It's not a small sample size of time or decisions anymore.


Do you give him a break on that win-loss record based on the first few rebuilding years considering the state of the team when he took over? 


Yes, absolutely.



But here's how I look at the entire picture overall:



Was he able to turn the team around quickly after taking over? No, he wasn't. I didn't expect him to be able to. But he certainly didn't come in and exceed expectations.



When the team finally did experience success, did they win anything in the post season? The answer to that is, "no."



When the team finally did experience success, was it a sustained period of success? Not even close. We're right back to losing and rebuilding.



Has he been churning productive, above average players out of his farm system at an equal or better rate of success than his peers? No, he hasn't.



So, I absolutely give him a break for the losing years in the beginning. It was expected.



But, it's ten years now and we stink.



Whether you agree with this or not Dog, that's as reasonable of an explanation as to why he's not a good GM as you're going to get.

7A71797570716A2F295E677F767171307D711E0 wrote: Trends are important too, not just an overall tally.  I see it as a slow, moderate rise and then a stumble.  Now has this setback temporary or a sign of how things "really" are?  I don't know but I'm getting worried.


Yes, better way to put it.  At this point in time, I think (opinion) Huntington has done more good than bad.  Sure, that can change.  I too am getting close to the worried state.




that's one way to look at it but at the same time i'm not going to say that the people who look at the record are wrong. that's totally valid

1A2824243002212825202F28490 wrote: Trends are important too, not just an overall tally.  I see it as a slow, moderate rise and then a stumble.  Now has this setback temporary or a sign of how things "really" are?  I don't know but I'm getting worried.


Yes, better way to put it.  At this point in time, I think (opinion) Huntington has done more good than bad.  Sure, that can change.  I too am getting close to the worried state.




that's one way to look at it but at the same time i'm not going to say that the people who look at the record are wrong.  that's totally valid






I agree that Huntington has done more good than bad. However, I think that is case for most major league gm's. More good than bad isn't good enough to win.



A lot more good than bad is needed.

705657405646350 wrote: Trends are important too, not just an overall tally.  I see it as a slow, moderate rise and then a stumble.  Now has this setback temporary or a sign of how things "really" are?  I don't know but I'm getting worried.


Yes, better way to put it.  At this point in time, I think (opinion) Huntington has done more good than bad.  Sure, that can change.  I too am getting close to the worried state.




that's one way to look at it but at the same time i'm not going to say that the people who look at the record are wrong.  that's totally valid






I agree that Huntington has done more good than bad.  However, I think that is case for most major league gm's.  More good than bad isn't good enough to win.



A lot more good than bad is needed.


we're at a tipping point at what I think about him. they could still have another losing season, though, if we get more of a coherent plan and wise moves are made.

0626352829470 wrote:



Still it seems a little picky/choosy to tag the successes as lucky while also saying that fails are all incompetence.   




I agree with this 100%.



NH should be credited with both successes and failures as a result of his decision making. He's been on the job long enough that we shouldn't be saying his good decisions were due to luck and his bad decisions were due to incompetence.



It's very hard to quantify what specific decisions are based on luck as opposed to competency.



So, there's a much simpler formula that I choose to use in order to quantify everything:



Wins and losses at the major league level.



Three winning seasons out of ten means that the cumulative decisions that are being made are not good.



It's not a small sample size of time or decisions anymore.


Do you give him a break on that win-loss record based on the first few rebuilding years considering the state of the team when he took over? 


Yes, absolutely.



But here's how I look at the entire picture overall:



Was he able to turn the team around quickly after taking over? No, he wasn't. I didn't expect him to be able to. But he certainly didn't come in and exceed expectations.



When the team finally did experience success, did they win anything in the post season? The answer to that is, "no."



When the team finally did experience success, was it a sustained period of success? Not even close. We're right back to losing and rebuilding.



Has he been churning productive, above average players out of his farm system at an equal or better rate of success than his peers? No, he hasn't.



So, I absolutely give him a break for the losing years in the beginning. It was expected.



But, it's ten years now and we stink.



Whether you agree with this or not Dog, that's as reasonable of an explanation as to why he's not a good GM as you're going to get.




Good answer. I understand your reasoning. I just wouldn't look at win-loss record as a main factor considering the early years. I agree things aren't looking good, but overall as a whole they have been good in my opinion. He certainly needs his draft picks to start producing again.