I see what you're saying, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Something you must also keep in mind is that Beane isn't going by other people's draft boards/rankings. The players he takes he honestly believes are the best bang for the buck available, which is what he must go after. He could never sign tons of players who are consensus first (rounders according to other people), so he developed his own "system" which is the basis of the book, therefore bringing it all full circle. You also have to consider that some of the high-priced players don't fit into the philosophy of the A's as much as others. I'm not saying he wouldn't want someone like Young, or Weeks, or Kazmir etc, but if he can find cheaper players that fit his system better, why spend millions on those guys when he can't spend money like that on his major league players. I know it's well documented by now, but he just can't sign those players and remain viable -- financially and hence competitively. Another thing is that as some of his proteges become GMs themselves, his entire philosophy will be forced to change as well. This draft strategy, like many of the other subjects in the book, will become outdated. Everyone knows about and are begining to use things like OBP and SLG now so he is constantly having to stay ahead of the curve so to speak and this particular draft strategy will be forced to change as well.
I think the thing that most people miss concerning the Moneyball theory is the theory itself. He is attempting to exploit deficiencies in other teams approach, and -- at the time of the book -- this draft philosophy was one avenue by which to do that. It's not about OBP or any specific stat/approach as many people think it is, it's about a different/innovative (depending on your point of view) approach to running a team.
funny coincidence, but i just started reading this book yesterday as well..
I have also come to this part, and I have pondered the same question.
Why would he draft him so high if nobody else even knew about him, or wasn't even projected to be drafted high. Couldn't he have just waited until one of the later rounds?
SaintsOfTheDiamond wrote:I see what you're saying, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Something you must also keep in mind is that Beane isn't going by other people's draft boards/rankings. The players he takes he honestly believes are the best bang for the buck available, which is what he must go after. He could never sign tons of players who are consensus first (rounders according to other people), so he developed his own "system" which is the basis of the book, therefore bringing it all full circle. You also have to consider that some of the high-priced players don't fit into the philosophy of the A's as much as others. I'm not saying he wouldn't want someone like Young, or Weeks, or Kazmir etc, but if he can find cheaper players that fit his system better, why spend millions on those guys when he can't spend money like that on his major league players. I know it's well documented by now, but he just can't sign those players and remain viable -- financially and hence competitively. Another thing is that as some of his proteges become GMs themselves, his entire philosophy will be forced to change as well. This draft strategy, like many of the other subjects in the book, will become outdated. Everyone knows about and are begining to use things like OBP and SLG now so he is constantly having to stay ahead of the curve so to speak and this particular draft strategy will be forced to change as well.
I think the thing that most people miss concerning the Moneyball theory is the theory itself. He is attempting to exploit deficiencies in other teams approach, and -- at the time of the book -- this draft philosophy was one avenue by which to do that. It's not about OBP or any specific stat/approach as many people think it is, it's about a different/innovative (depending on your point of view) approach to running a team.
There are a lot of teams that can't afford their players anymore because they are arbitration eligible, etc. That is unfortunate but happens from time to time. IMHO, this is much worse. We all frown at a system where teams like the Pirates and Royals trade off anyone making over $1M. That is thinking ahead and getting decent value (hopefully). Now, they are passing on unproven players because of a potential future value?? It amazes me that a GM would pass on a player in the 1st round (other than the head cases) just because of signability issues. I am not talking about the Drew's and Weaver's of the world although it's not like those guys were asking for $10M/year.
I will preface this last part by saying that, while impressed by the competitiveness of the team based on their payroll over the years, I am not a big fan of all of the Beane hype. People pray to this guy while he has never won a WS. To me, that's what it's all about. I wonder what the Moneyball opinions are out there. Are the fans happy with making the playoffs 2 or 3 times out of 4 and then getting bounced in the 1st round every year?? As a fan, I wouldn't. You would think that they would have won a series by luck at least once. Any time that you trot those 3 pitchers out for a 5 game series, you need to win at least 1 of them.
I am of the opinion that you need to do whatever you can to try to win. Some teams can buy tons of players and others need to do it through the draft. Some are in between. It upsets me when Beane isn't actually drafting the best players out there. I reiterate that taking a relative 10th rounder in the 1st might make him look like Merlin but why not take another guy and then get your "steal" later?? Their record over the years was good enough that it's not like they would have a Drew or Weaver situation on their hands all of the time.
I commend him for bucking the system but you need to be smart about it. IMHO, the key to a draft isn't getting your guys 10 rounds before your competition. It's about getting them right before your competition.
Going to one of your earlier comments, why would you sign a concensus first-rounder when your team a) can't afford to pay him what he wants, and b) he might never pan out. The MLB draft is a crapshoot, and Beane knows this. He's simply trying to hedge his bets by putting as little on the table with the guys who - in his opinion - have the best shot at getting it done. That's why a 10th-20th rounder in the 1st is a good idea. That's why he swept in aggressively to lock the kid up.
Lofunzo wrote:I will preface this last part by saying that, while impressed by the competitiveness of the team based on their payroll over the years, I am not a big fan of all of the Beane hype. People pray to this guy while he has never won a WS. To me, that's what it's all about. I wonder what the Moneyball opinions are out there. Are the fans happy with making the playoffs 2 or 3 times out of 4 and then getting bounced in the 1st round every year?? As a fan, I wouldn't. You would think that they would have won a series by luck at least once. Any time that you trot those 3 pitchers out for a 5 game series, you need to win at least 1 of them.
I actually think you have it backwards. What are the odds of winning the World Series in a given year assuming you make the playoffs? One-in-eight, right? And since the probability of prior events don't matter if they are independent, which this is, then Beane's teams have never had better than 12.5% chance of winning everything.
It is very conceivable that he wouldn't win the Series under those odds. Just bad luck.
Another issue I didn't mention before, was that he must be in the business of minimizing risk and maximizing potential. If one of his first round guys busts, he's out what, half a million dollars? If he goes for the high risk high reward guys who are the "traditional" first rounders and they bust, he's out several million dollars, which is more than he pays many of his major league players.
Lofunzo wrote:Are the fans happy with making the playoffs 2 or 3 times out of 4 and then getting bounced in the 1st round every year?? As a fan, I wouldn't. You would think that they would have won a series by luck at least once. Any time that you trot those 3 pitchers out for a 5 game series, you need to win at least 1 of them.
Considering how the situation in OAK has changed over the last decade plus (going from free-spenders to penny pinchers), I would be extatic going to the playoffs 3 out of 4 years with a payroll like that. I agree that they should have won at least one series by now, but when you run into teams like the Yankees every year, you're behind the 8-ball even with the "luck of the draw" nature of the playoffs. Which, FWIW , I don't think is quite as random as many people think.
Lofunzo wrote:I am of the opinion that you need to do whatever you can to try to win. Some teams can buy tons of players and others need to do it through the draft. Some are in between.
Not every team can be the Yankees or Red Sox or Angels. He, believe it or not, is doing all he can to win this year, while not sacrificing his teams ability to compete for the next decade. It may not have the results some fans are looking for, but personally, I would much rather be competitive year in and year out with a chance to make WS every year, than win one year and then suck for a decade because the team has a bunch of cumbersome contracts.
Lofunzo wrote:I commend him for bucking the system but you need to be smart about it. IMHO, the key to a draft isn't getting your guys 10 rounds before your competition. It's about getting them right before your competition.
I don't see how you can say he hasn't been smart about it. He has fielded a winning team using his system and a payroll which is lower than many teams who wallow in mediocrity, and they get a relatively free pass compared to Beane. I know that with the book there comes more scrutiny, but at times I think he gets bashed too much because of the book and people expecting him to win every year with a payroll that is a fraction of the teams he really has to contend with -- Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels.
Going to one of your earlier comments, why would you sign a concensus first-rounder when your team a) can't afford to pay him what he wants, and b) he might never pan out. The MLB draft is a crapshoot, and Beane knows this. He's simply trying to hedge his bets by putting as little on the table with the guys who - in his opinion - have the best shot at getting it done. That's why a 10th-20th rounder in the 1st is a good idea. That's why he swept in aggressively to lock the kid up.
Lofunzo wrote:I will preface this last part by saying that, while impressed by the competitiveness of the team based on their payroll over the years, I am not a big fan of all of the Beane hype. People pray to this guy while he has never won a WS. To me, that's what it's all about. I wonder what the Moneyball opinions are out there. Are the fans happy with making the playoffs 2 or 3 times out of 4 and then getting bounced in the 1st round every year?? As a fan, I wouldn't. You would think that they would have won a series by luck at least once. Any time that you trot those 3 pitchers out for a 5 game series, you need to win at least 1 of them.
I actually think you have it backwards. What are the odds of winning the World Series in a given year assuming you make the playoffs? One-in-eight, right? And since the probability of prior events don't matter if they are independent, which this is, then Beane's teams have never had better than 12.5% chance of winning everything.
It is very conceivable that he wouldn't win the Series under those odds. Just bad luck.
JT.......Sign a consensus 1st rounder?? We are not talking about a top 5 player. We are talking about someone in the 20's in the 1st round. I would also bet that if Brown dominated early, we would see him do something stupid on the advice of his agent. That is after they can just renew his contract. If he wants to get his guy early, that's cool. Why so early, though?? If he is worried about taking a 1st rounder in the 1st round, why not a 2nd or 3rd rounder that he had on his board. I don't know the salary structure of rookies but I bet that he paid Brown more $$ than he would have had he drafted him in the 5th-10th rounds.
I am not talking about winning the WS although that would be nice based on all of the love that he gets here. I am saying that he should have to win 1 playoff series before getting this much love. He had the best rotation in the majors for years and could never get through 1 round. A 5 game series should have been taylor made for that rotation.
Lofunzo wrote:I am of the opinion that you need to do whatever you can to try to win. Some teams can buy tons of players and others need to do it through the draft. Some are in between.
Not every team can be the Yankees or Red Sox or Angels. He, believe it or not, is doing all he can to win this year, while not sacrificing his teams ability to compete for the next decade. It may not have the results some fans are looking for, but personally, I would much rather be competitive year in and year out with a chance to make WS every year, than win one year and then suck for a decade because the team has a bunch of cumbersome contracts.
I was waiting for the Yankee/Red Sox comparisons.
I don't expect them to sign FA's like the Yankees. Never expected that. I am just saying that there are other ways to go about it. He can keep going after the Hatteberg's of the world if that's what he needs to do to supplement his team. He could put more $$ into foreign scouting. He could also do his best to draft the best players possible while still getting his guys. If he is a genius, he should know that Brown is a relative 12th rounder (for example) and draft him in the 11th. You guys make it sound like a 25th pick in the 1st round is gonna want top 3 $$.
As for being competitive year in and year out rather than win 1 and then suck for years, that is interesting. I tend to think that if the fans out there were polled, they would take the latter. I know that there was 54 years in between Cups but Ranger fans aren't happy now because the team sucks but they wouldn't trade anything for that Cup in 1994. Sorry for the NHL reference. I would be curious to see how many people are cool with a team that has posted great regular season records over the years only to fail in the playoffs. I also wonder how their continued success will stand up once the last of their Big 3 is gone.
Lofunzo wrote:I am not talking about winning the WS although that would be nice based on all of the love that he gets here. I am saying that he should have to win 1 playoff series before getting this much love. He had the best rotation in the majors for years and could never get through 1 round. A 5 game series should have been taylor made for that rotation.
I think you just proved Beane's philosophy that the playoff's are based more on luck than anything else.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by SaintsOfTheDiamond » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:21 am 
I would be curious to see how many people are cool with a team that has posted great regular season records over the years only to fail in the playoffs. I also wonder how their continued success will stand up once the last of their Big 3 is gone.
