With the offseason essentially over...

[mweb]

Fair enough. I concede the point to you -- I don't think this is going to get any more interesting for either of us.

Haha, indeed. Well like I said before, this was mainly a semantics thing anyway.

[RShack]

Doesn't the shift upward also internalize the (unscientific) correction for a school's self-esteem. I.e., 'average' grades are what occur elsewhere, where folks aren't as smart. I.e., "average" here isn't really "average" at all, and grades should account for that.

Depends on the school. At GT, you had to work your butt off, and almost nobody carried a 4.0. It was so tough that they required only a 3.3 to make the Dean's List, otherwise hardly anybody would be on it. But GT is unusual that way. We used to tell freshman that if they wanted it easy, they should go to UGA, otherwise they should quit whining and learn how to study, and they'd be glad about it later.

At Stanford, the SAT scores were about the same as GT's, but it seemed like once students got in, they were part of the club. While there are indeed many wonderful things about the place, the thing I didn't like was that they didn't push students. A few research faculty did, and students got in line for their courses, so it's not like the students minded being pushed. But the general atmosphere was to not do that. I got in trouble once because I told a class who had just screwed up a midterm (which was a good test, not a bad one) that if they were at Stanford, that meant they were special, and it was time for them to start acting like it. All hell broke loose over that ;-) Anyway, for many classes there, they were giving out B+'s and A's like candy.

All in all, I think it's safe to say that grade inflation is rampant, and especially so at many Ivy League schools and similar places. I think GT is an exception, and I think they've been softening up too about grades...

[square634]

Depends on the school. At GT, you had to work your butt off, and almost nobody carried a 4.0. It was so tough that they required only a 3.3 to make the Dean's List, otherwise hardly anybody would be on it. But GT is unusual that way. We used to tell freshman that if they wanted it easy, they should go to UGA, otherwise they should quit whining and learn how to study, and they'd be glad about it later.

At Stanford, the SAT scores were about the same as GT's, but it seemed like once students got in, they were part of the club. While there are indeed many wonderful things about the place, the thing I didn't like was that they didn't push students. A few research faculty did, and students got in line for their courses, so it's not like the students minded being pushed. But the general atmosphere was to not do that. I got in trouble once because I told a class who had just screwed up a midterm (which was a good test, not a bad one) that if they were at Stanford, that meant they were special, and it was time for them to start acting like it. All hell broke loose over that ;-) Anyway, for many classes there, they were giving out B+'s and A's like candy.

All in all, I think it's safe to say that grade inflation is rampant, and especially so at many Ivy League schools and similar places. I think GT is an exception, and I think they've been softening up too about grades...

/*irrelevant rant

Here at Penn the science and engineering grades are generally strictly curved, with the class average as a B-minus, or a 2.67 GPA. Some departments have more latitude and put the average at a B, use the median instead of the mean, or set grade cutoffs based on gaps in the distribution. Professors of humanities courses or courses with very few students can give whatever grades they want and are generally more generous. So the average isn't that close to a straight C, but it isn't cake either! As an engineering student looking to apply to medical school next year, I wish we really did have more grade inflation so that my 3.58 GPA would look more impressive. Instead, the public's impression is that Ivy schools don't ever give out anything less than a B. Who knows how GPA translates from one school to another, or, more generally how the average student at one school compares to the average at another?

*/

[Satyr3206]

You can tell it's the off season when a poll about team moves devolves into a 4 page discussion of how it was graded.

[mweb]

You can tell it's the off season when a poll about team moves devolves into a 4 page discussion of how it was graded.

Takes a bow.

[Sports Guy]

If you're saying AM had a well below average off-season, you should be able to produce 20 or more teams that had better off-seasons.You can use a scale like Frobby mentioned, then like you said, it wouldn't matter what other teams did. Or say it wasn't a good off-season in terms of how you evaluate or whatever. But when you say whether it's average or not, then the other teams need to be considered. That is how average is measured, there must be more than one thing being rated for their to be an average.

I think every NL Central, AL Central, AL East and NL West teams had better offseasons...There, that's my opinion.

So yes, it was below average.

Thanks for asking.

[El Gordo]

I think every NL Central, AL Central, AL East and NL West teams had better offseasons...There, that's my opinion.

So yes, it was below average.

Thanks for asking.

The LAD's, the Pad's, the Atros, the Blue Jays, the Indians, the Royals, all had better off seasons?.....:scratchchinhmm:..

[maudibjr]

I think every NL Central, AL Central, AL East and NL West teams had better offseasons...There, that's my opinion.

So yes, it was below average.

Did you go to an ivy league school with that type of grade inflation?

[Mike B]

I think every NL Central, AL Central, AL East and NL West teams had better offseasons...There, that's my opinion.

So yes, it was below average.

Thanks for asking.

I reread your reasons for giving a C- or a D, and it does not seem to occur to you that there may be reasons Scott and Guthrie were not traded. Teams that needed left handed bats, had the luxury to wait out the FA market and get similar talent cheaper and free of sending talent back. Jim Thome, Carlos Delgado, Russell Branyan, Johnny Damon just to name a few were either recently signed or are still available. Many teams were letting the market percolate.

Maybe Guthrie could have been traded but his value was down after last year and the acquisition of Millwood would have been cancelled out.

As for clearing a spot for Pie, maybe the organization, wants to see more of Felix before commiting to him. One thing that seems certain is that things happen over the course of the year that generally leads to having one too many turning into not having enough.

I think D is too harsh but that is JMO.

[tilgaham]

You can tell it's the off season when a poll about team moves devolves into a 4 page discussion of how it was graded.

Does it make me any less of a fan if I enjoyed the discussion about grade inflation more than the banter over FA (non)signings?

[mweb]

I think every NL Central, AL Central, AL East and NL West teams had better offseasons...There, that's my opinion.

So yes, it was below average.

Thanks for asking.

Haha, ok, whatever.

[Frobby]

Bump.....

I'm sensing a huge amount of hypocrisy in posters who are just lambasting Andy MacPhail for failing to address the team's problems in the offseason, and saying he is to blame for the events that got Trembley fired. Take a look at the results of this poll, taken a week before camp opened. The vast majority of posters gave MacPhail an above average grade. I haven't done a comparison, but it looks to me like many posters who are killing MacPhail now were perfectly fine with his offseason on the eve of spring training.

Heck, I was one of the harsher graders, and I gave MacPhail a C+. And that was due to the Atkins move.

I think 99% of the posters here (JTrea81 being an exception) felt that Markakis, Jones, Reimold, Pie, Scott was plenty good enough in the OF. In fact, a lot of posters were suggesting that we trade one away because of our surplus in that regard. It is not MacPhail's fault that Jones and Reimold have been far worse than anyone expected and Pie got hurt. Nor do I blame MacPhail for the fact that Wieters currently has a .652 OPS, or that Tejada has a .667 OPS.

On the pitching side, most people liked the Millwood trade and the Gonzalez acquisition, and felt we had very good depth in the bullpen. We didn't know Gonzo, Koji, JJ and Simon would all get hurt. Granted, there was injury risk, but we seemed to have plenty of depth and having FOUR bullpen guys fall prey to injuries certainly was unforseeable.

I will give one caveat here -- I've heard some speculation that we didn't do good medical due diligence on Gonzalez. Knowing Peter Angelos's typical paranoia on that topic, I find that speculation a bit hard to swallow. However, if that is true, then we'd all be justified in changing our offseason grades.

So, bottom line, if you are criticizing AM now for what he did this offseason, be prepared to explain the grade you gave him in February.

[Stan P]

Looks like the 2 people that voted F knew what they were talking about.

[clapdiddy]

I gave him a C+ too!

I thought that Millwood would be a big asset and that Gonzo was a good signing, even though I preferred Capps.

I also thought that Tejada was a good signing...and still feel that way.

[Old#5fan]

Looks like the 2 people that voted F knew what they were talking about.

I gave him a C- but was feeling very generous that day. I think it was after the Tejada signing that I elevated my rating from a D.