|
Post by GoodFriar on May 17, 2005 10:48:04 GMT -5
Friar has not read Michael Lewis' book on baseball and all things Billy Beane, but it can't be much comfort to A's fans. Has anyone noticed how bad that team is now? MoneyBall can also be called MoneyBull.
David Justice, (who Friar likes, btw), was saying during the broadcast over the weekend how things really don't look good for that team. If you look at their future, it's really not too bright. Suspect pitching, like slop-baller Blanton. Weak hitting. Mediocre bullpen. No bench.
No future.
They may have a stong farm system, with some young blue-chippers ready to contribute. They'd better, otherwise there will be some unhappy fans in the East Bay. And, we've all seen how unruly those fans can be...
|
|
|
Post by PurpleShamrock on May 17, 2005 11:34:07 GMT -5
But GF, do the fans out there really have any right to lay the blame on Billy Beane for the fact that their team has gone down the tubes? To wit, they made the playoffs every year from 2000 through 2003, all the while wielding what was probably the best 1-2-3 combo of any starting roation in all of baseball -- and they still had to hold "Dollar Wednesdays" just to draw fans. If they had come out and supported the team in greater numbers, maybe they could have kept key players like Hudson, Mulder, and Tejada. Moreover, maybe they could have afforded to go out and acquire that player or two who could have put them over the top.
|
|
|
Post by CeciliaTan on May 17, 2005 13:24:59 GMT -5
GF, it is a good read and worth picking up at the library. What many people who have not read the book are forgetting is that the reason Billy Beane developed the systems he has is because they simply wouldn't spend the money to get it done any other way.
The idea is not that a high OBP guy like Scott Hatteberg is "better" than Jason Giambi, it's that if you don't have $15 million a year to spend on a guy like Giambi, then you settle for a bunch of guys like Hatteberg who tire out pitchers and then you have one or two big boppers who drive them in. That way you pay only a few players the big bucks and the rest you can pay marginally. They signed Chavez to that big deal last year and if he were playing up to his usual numbers this year, the A's would not have the worst offense in the league, which they currently do. But Chavvy is hitting .181 or something, Crosby who was ROY last year is on the DL, Swisher is hurt, too, so they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to put guys on the field right now.
Another thing Beane has not been allowed to pay a lot for is bullpen help. When the A's were on that run of making the postseason every year, they were doing it with guys like Chad Bradford and Jim Mecir (who has a club foot), and changing closers every year so they wouldn't overpay for a closer. Well, the lack of spending finally got them when whosiewhatsit blew all those saves early last year (Arthur Rhodes was it?)... so they were forced to get Octavio Dotel from Houston. And now Dotel has been a bit of a flop, too, with the two high profile blown saves last week in Boston (two walk off HR in a row), and very nearly blowing it last night as well (though the A's hung on for a 6-4 win, phew).
The ideas of "Moneyball" don't say that Billy Beane has all the answers for building a winning ball club. What they do show is how you can build a contender without overpaying for some of the talents that other clubs *do* overpay for. First is develop good starting pitching in your minor league system so guys come up ready to contend--or at least act as very good trade bait for other pitching-hungry clubs. That means drafting well (more college pitchers than high school, pitchers with better control rather than just high radar gun readings who other clubs will overbid for), and teaching the same philosophy throughout the whole minor league system (throw strikes, get ahead, and learn a third pitch). Second is develop position players with high on base percentage. Power develops as players age, but a good batting eye and patience at the plate pretty much can't be taught and are innate. This isn't because power hitting free swingers like Vlad Guerrero and Alfonso Soriano aren't greta players--it's because the Guerreros and Sorianos of the world get paid more in the marketplace than the guys who walk a lot. But guys who walk a lot don't tend to go into OBP slumps so they continue to contribute to your offense year round, even if they aren't swinging particularly well. Over the course of the 162 game season, you end up with similar offensive production from those guys as you do from the free swingers, but more consistently and you paid less for it.
Of course what the A's have learned is that building a team that contends over the course of 162 games because averages even out, is not the same thing as building a team that can win a short series in October. There you need, it would seem, both good starting pitching (which the A's have had) AND also explosive offensive pop. As the A's have lost their pop over time, they have declined and this year is no exception.
|
|
|
Post by DavidL on May 17, 2005 13:46:31 GMT -5
I haven't read the book, either, but one of the things I understand is part of MoneyBall is to target those useful traits that other teams have undervalued. For a few years, that meant players with high OBP as opposed to high BA and power. Now that other teams are looking at, and paying for, high OBP, the MoneyBall approach would dictate finding some other stat that's being undervalued and look for players that do well by that measure.
|
|
|
Post by ZbiSal on May 18, 2005 0:30:13 GMT -5
I've read "Moneyball". It's really good worth reading book. Means described in this book worked for the A's for few years and Oakland low budget team was able to compete with big money teams. Beane looked like sort of baseball genius.
Alas, it doesn't work for them so far this year but I wouldn't write them off. They've proved they are the champions of the 2nd half of the season.
Pozyjemy, zobaczymy.
|
|
|
Post by Knuckles on May 18, 2005 9:34:45 GMT -5
I read it too.
I think there are many misconceptions about it. I would agree that most of the complaints against it are misinformed, and that the theories hold some weight.
That being said, I have two negatives to add and one positive.
1. The only thing that annoys me about the book (not the kudos and sympathy for the small markets, nor the implied criticism of the biggest market of them all, btw) is the book's assumption and that of Beane (and those who agree with him) that the worst way to evaluate players is to watch players play. They make fun of old-time scouts who do rely on what they see when they watch games. I have no argument with SABR, and am delighted with the increased interest baseball receives due to their membership's often passionate efforts. But the reduction of the game to a math equation sometimes annoys me.
It's great that people who have no access to ballgames from all over the world carry this study on. The wisdom that Zbi displays, for instance, astounds me. But there are plenty who live near ballparks too who would rather study each night's numbers than watch players play when spinning their theories, and I think those people have severely missed the boat in understanding the game.
2. Mr. Beane deserves SOME of the negative press he is getting and will get as the A's struggle. He has made their success with the Big Three a little more "about me [himself]" than he needed to. He is very self-possessed, and I think he's probably handling the down moments just fine. But some of the negative "Moneyball" press he gets is deserved.
3. The positive: Well, it's impossible to judge his actions moving Hudson and Mulder now. Harken, Harden, Calero, et all must be given some time before judging whether or not he did well.
YANKEE BASEBALL!!!
|
|