Essential problems with the interview process
Whether or not a candidate understands the implications of DIPS theory and modern defensive analysis will make a huge difference in their ability to correctly value players, and they’ll be hired by people who think they understand baseball stats but have clearly demonstrated they know nothing.
A candidate will have to sell Armstrong and Lincoln on a course of action that does not offend or put them off, even though they apparently have returned to viewing the 2001 season and its surrounding years as the apex of the franchise, when previously fixating on what they thought were the lessons of those years proved disastrous.
Lincoln and Armstrong are supposedly asking candidates detailed questions about how they would rebuild the team, deal with certain situations, and so on. This is a huge improvement over the last go-round. But the interviewers have no ability to evaluate whether or not an answer is right — and from what we know of their baseball opinions, are often disastrously wrong. So we’re left to hope that they will pay attention to how the candidate solves the problem… except that Armstrong’s recently stated that what they really want to see is a return to consensus-building and consultation, which would mean that the candidate who says he’d rely on the good advice of his interviewers will meet the stated criteria to get a job in which relying on those people will result in extremely poor decision making.
Comments
5 Responses to “Essential problems with the interview process”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There is absolutely no reason why the Ms couldn’t be the cutting edge franchise that the rest of the league looks to emulate.
The leaked GM candidate list already looks like a group of compromises in this regard.
I’ve got no stomach for the next five years if they screw the pooch on this decision which is the most important one they could hope to make.
This is a seminal moment in Mariner history and this isn’t a case where I’m using hyperbole.
It stands to reason that if L/A were good at this sort of thing they would not be looking for a new GM. At most they would be looking within the organization for a replacement for the one they just lost. Instead they are looking for someone with skills that do not exist within the Mariners’ brain trust. A blind pig can at least use its nose to find food. That would be more than L/A have going for them.
The historical problem with the Mariners front office is the bureaucracy in making a decision. Armstrong and Lincoln, should already have a short list, instead we look like rookies going around and asking and getting rejected answers. It just seems like we don’t have a plan on what we want, or how to build a team for the Safco field and al west division.
We need a gm to provide a path and get it done, yet we continue to meddle along this long, course of multiple interviews, while the good candidates will get extensions or take other jobs,
Lincoln, Armstrong, show leadership, get off your duff and do your job and get out of the way! We are tired of your presences in the press.
We want to talk hot stove league, and the rebuilding process. The team has important decision to make, and we are twiddling our thumbs awaiting your inactions.
Other teams already are moving on the waiver wire and getting their house in order!
I hope we aren’t going to be last to the dance this year, more than ever, we need an aggressive plan and a Front office to execute it!
Remember that when they answer these detailed questions, they’re going to be talking to people who said “oh, yeah, he’s good, you should get him” when confronted with the name “Carl Everett”.
Chuck and Howie can tell that A-Rod is a good player, but they don’t have any finer tools at their disposal. They literally DO NOT KNOW. They thought Richie Sexson was a good player who just was in a bad situation; they probably STILL think that. They think Miguel Cairo is a good player.
Yup. CHipped stone heads, while every one else is using precision machined tools.
And the stated preference for consensus means paralysis, inflexibility, slow to move and a probable generation of group think (meaning they want someone who thinks like them).