GTWMA, might as well give it up. Some people can't see reality. Park effects are very real, and very important irl. Texas could have saved 51 mil by looking at the park effects on Chan Ho Park. The fact Beltre hit 48 hrs in a pitchers park (LA) 50% of the time, doesn't mean the park didn't have a negative effect on him. Discounting park effects makes no sense.
I don't think Beane's overrated. I can't think of 5 better gms.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Hall of Fame Hero
(Past Year: 247)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.
Phatferd wrote:Anyway, my point is moneyball has not won anything since it has become a "way of management." Yes, the A's have been successful in the regular season, but when the playoffs come around they don't do well. I couldn't tell you why because the strange thing is that their teams were built for the playoffs, based on their rotation. They had 3 studs to pitch in a short series and could never get it done.
Take the Twins for example, very similar salary situations and they get it done just as well if not better than the A's. Yes, they play in a very weak division but they have made it to the ALCS at least.
Both Terry Ryan and Billy Beane have said a repeated number of times that they do not build teams for the playoffs. Lack or abundance of postseason success is no way to measure the success of an architect. Compared to a 162-game season, each playoff series is just a crap shoot. Especially the divisional series which are a laughable best-of-five. Both Ryan and Beane recognize that there is no sense in building a team for five and seven game contests in October if you need to get through 162 games in the six months prior to reach those contests.
CubsFan7724 wrote:I did nothing to insult your intelligence, so why did you feel the need to flame me? I know what park effects are, and I never said park effects were teams building around their park. So thanks for putting words in my mouth. How do you adjust for park effects, anyways? Can you explain? Id like to see.
Flame you? Get a grip.
And in the statement below you clearly said that park effects were an effect of team building.
Park effects are real and you cant ignore them when determining a offense. Many teams offenses are built to take advantage of the park. So when you take that away, it makes a team look better or worse than they are in real life.
You really don't know what park effects are, because you've consistently misrepresented what they are and how they are supposed to be used in this discussion.
I think that 'moneyball' is largely a literary construct and, while a clever book, does not have much meaning in IRL baseball. Even teams that HAVE money pursue strategies, however absurd they may be...'we don't need Beltran or Lofton, Bernie Baseball IS our CF because he IS a Yankee!!' is a strategy too. A heartwarming one if he suddenly goes 30/30...oh wait....
The strategy employed by the As, while obviously clever, as they HAVE been pretty successful on a low budget for some time, is comparable to the strategies pursued by other lower tier teams, looking for ways to find bargains overlooked by the Yankees/ Cubs/ Red Sox and other teams w/ money to smoke. Many of the 'new' stats cited as evidence of a 'theory of moneyball' in the book were concocted several decades ago (at least...) and I refuse to believe that Oakland was the only team using them.
Once you start looking at different stats, it's not that much of a leap to look at all players, good OR bad a bit differently. Sure some idiots are still going to offer guys who strike out a lot and are decaying superstars wazooloads of money (cf the chunk the Cubs are paying to GET RID of Sammy!!! ) and while Beane has done a nice job, the book came BEFORE the 'theory' (sic) as there is not actually a theory, just guys who spend a lot of time thinking about baseball and making business decisions to do so. I kind of suspect that you could write a moneyball-esque book about just about every team in the majors and, at least to the crowd around here, they would ALL be fascinating reads.
Good thread though, lots of interesting stuff here!!
Phatferd wrote:Buddy, I don't know what your problem is, but I didn't make it personal with you, so why did you make it personal? If the only way you can win an argument is to resort to name calling then you have more issues to deal with. Name calling is for 6 year olds, not adults. I didn't question your intelligence, I have more respect for people on here than to resort to that kind of crap. This is a discussion board and I don't mind debate, I enjoy talking baseball, but I don't come on here to get into childish arguments. I prefer the adult type where we can go back and forth and bring good dialogue to the table.
Back to the discussion, If you read a little more into my argument and I know you are smart enough to do that because you make good arguments. I don't agree with your argument, but they have merit. You will notice that my whole argument is that I do not buy into the park effect theory, so telling me I do not understand park effect is a mute point, because I do not agree with it.
It's like telling a women to understand what it feels like to be a man and vice versa no one will ever know the opposites feelings. One reason I don't agree with it is because of a reason I am about to explain. You say that we have to grade numbers on an even field or according to park effects, whatever. I say this, you can always take an OK hitter and make him an above average hitter (production wise) by putting him in Coors, Ameriquest and Citizens Bank. However, on the flip side you have a guy like Beltre last year who did what he did in a very difficult park to hit in. Are you saying that if he were in Coors last year he would have hit 360 with 65 HR and 170 RBI?I do not think so. He may have hit a little better but you can't really get much better than that. So park's to me play a part, but not in the overall value of your team. A good team will win a majority of their games on the road and a majority at home. My point is you have to look at your own stadium to evaluate your team.
Anyway, I just don't buy into the theory. I may not be right, but I just do not buy into those kind of theories (for the most part). It doesn't mean I am less intelligent. It just means I do not support your way of thinking for my personal self.
My problem is that you put words in my mouth that were completely the opposite of what I wrote. Sorry, but I have a major problem with people who misrepresent another person's argument either through a failure to read carefully or through a deliberate attempt to twist another person's words.
I don't understand what you mean by "I don't buy into the park effect theory." That's sort of like saying, "I don't believe in that round earth theory" You really don't believe that teams score more in Coors field than in Petco or Dodger stadium? I suppose if you really want you can not believe credible facts, but don't expect anyone to respect you for that opinion.
And yes, if Beltran was in Coors field, he would have hit much better. All of his stats would have been raised by about 10%. Now most park factors are not nearly this big, but there's enough of a difference that you must make adjustments. A player's stats are significantly impacted by the parks he plays in and you have to adjust a player or team performance to be able to make comparisons.
I'd explain Beltre (or -an...) not experiencing as much of a 'bump' in Coors as perhaps the law of diminishing returns can be applied to park factors?
I have to agree w/ GTWMA that park factor is something that can't be overlooked though. Particularly for FBL!! EG, I rarely pick As or Dodgers for bats for my fantasy teams and I also steer clear of CO and Bos SP (although I had Oswalt and Dotel for a bit in 2003...). Generally, I prefer to select SP that are on 'good' teams (to get W...) which is not an option that Beane, et al can avail themselves of as they are trying to make the team good...
my thoughts on beane have been explained many times in various moneyball threads. here's a synopsis...
1) I realize he's on a very limited budget. To win that many games with so little money is a great accomplishment
2) I truly believe that nearly all of Oakland's success is the result of the big 3 coming of age at the same time and being cheap for a few years. I dont expect the A's to win the West this year, but if they dont return to this level over the next 3 years, I have to assume that it was some kind of fluke.
3) He hasnt won a playoff series. Im not saying that moneyball cant win a playoff series, but its very dificult to annoint beane some kind of genius when his teams havent gotten past the first round. the twins have done it. so have the marlins
4) i dont like the moneyball form of drafting because it limits your chances to draft and develop superstars. i realize that high profile HS kids require rather large signing bonuses. But, id rather pay a little more to get a shot at a carlos beltran then reach in the late first round to take Jeremy Brown (.256 with 6 HR last year as a 25 yr old in AA)
i dont think he can even come close to a title without the big 3. if he can somehow find this kind of pitching staff again, ill be willing to give him all the credit he deserves. until then, he has proven very little in my eyes. His system didnt even produce a playoff win when he had the big 3, chavez, giambi, tejada, a healthy dye, johnny damon and isringhausen. this speaks volumes in my eyes.
tlef316 wrote:3) He hasnt won a playoff series. Im not saying that moneyball cant win a playoff series, but its very dificult to annoint beane some kind of genius when his teams havent gotten past the first round. the twins have done it. so have the marlins
His system didnt even produce a playoff win when he had the big 3, chavez, giambi, tejada, a healthy dye, johnny damon and isringhausen. this speaks volumes in my eyes.
Systems don't produce playoff wins. Players and managers do. How many world series have the Braves won in thirteen straight post-season tries? One? Schuerholtz, Ryan, and Beane, are among the best GMs in the game. None build to "win in the postseason".
No GM can make his player's perform at exactly the right time. The GM's job is to assemble the best collection of talent given their means. The regular season is a much better test of how well put together a baseball team is. The best teams are infinately more likely to come out on top over 162 games than 5 or 7.
I have a question for the Beane detractors. What would it take to convince you that Beane knows what he's doing? How many wins do the A's need this year? What about over the next 5 years?
Beane has stated in interviews that part of his reasoning for the trades is that he doesn't want the team slipping into a 5-year rebuilding process. He was around for the lean years in the late 90's, and doesn't want to see that again. His hope is that in making the offseason trades that he did, the A's will continue to be competitive over the next 5 years. What about this year? Well, I think the A's will surprise some people - they certainly won't just be deep cellar dwellers all year long ...