clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Let Rick Hahn's kids in the White Sox war room

New, 108 comments

After Super Bowl prediction, GM is 2-for-2 in toss-up decisions when he hands the power down

Pretty much.

So, the Super Bowl turned out to be as close to the Breaking Madden simulation as humans could allow. Not many people could say they saw that kind of victory coming. The Denver Broncos were favored by 2½ points, and they even held an edge in less scientific forecasts.

For instance, MLB.com polled player, coach, executive or broadcaster from 26 teams for their Super Bowl predictions. Out of 27 total participants, 17 picked the Broncos.

The White Sox's delegate, Rick Hahn, ended up on the right side of history by picking the Seattle Seahawks. How?

"My kids (11 and 8) told me at the start of the playoffs that Seattle would win it all. It makes my Super Bowl viewing much more peaceful if I just stand with them."

So Rick Hahn's picked the No. 1 team in the NFC, you're saying. Big deal.

Well ... maybe it is.

This is the second time Hahn has used the counsel of one or both of his children to success. Back in 2008, he asked his older son to help him with a key coin flip back in 2008.

"I hadn't won [a coin flip] in the last seven years, so I asked Jake what we should go with," Rick Hahn said. "He said: 'Heads. Because when you flip a coin, it usually comes up heads.' Since that logic was at least as solid as anything that I had previously used, we went with it."

Heads it was, and the White Sox were awarded home-field advantage for a one-game playoff to settle the AL Central in case of a tie after 162 games. That sure came in handy.

Look, I'm not saying that an 11-year-old should replace Doug Laumann as the team's director of scouting (though, man, what if he did!). What I am suggesting is that, should the White Sox be torn between two players with the third pick in the June draft, it might be useful to keep Hahn's kids on retainer to make the call. They're probably too young to know what the gambler's fallacy is, so maybe it doesn't apply.

This is another way of saying: