SpecialFNK wrote:in the movie Moneyball they focus on the players like David Justice, Scott Hatteberg, Jeremy Giambi, Chad Bradford. but when they have the part where the A's went on the long winning streak in the 2nd half there's no mention of the players who had a lot more to do with it like Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, ect. the movie made it seem like Billy Beane made these moves to bring in the players they did focus one and that's what made the A's so good.
The book was very different in this regard. I suggest checking it out it's an incredible read for any fantasy and/or baseball fan.
We must have read a different book. Moneyball (the non-Beane glossing parts) were focused a ton on the draft for that season, Hatteberg, Giambi, and Bradford. What many expected to happen to the A's when the Big-3 staff made their way to the end of their team controlled season did happen.
The movie, from what I recall, barely discussed the draft at all. Bradford, from what I remember in the book, had at least an entire chapter dedicated to him, if not more, whereas he got all of 15 seconds of screen time/mention in the movie. The movie also made no mention of their draft strategy making deals with players to take them early and pay them nothing, etc. The movie mirrored the book much closer than I anticipated it would, but there was a lot left out, and if you're using only the movie as a benchmark for what the whole thing was about, you'd be missing a good chunk of it.
This is the new moneyball. AA style. First Escobar, then Lawrie, then Rasmus...who's next?
Karabell then slightly– adeptly, even– switches gears to the subject of the Jays collecting guys with not the best reputations– Escobar, Lawrie, Rasmus, Drabek– which is a strategy Law approves of.
“I think what you’re seeing is Toronto’s front office saying implicitly, through their actions, ‘we think that bad make-up stuff is usually overblown,’ ” he says. “And a player with ‘bad make-up’ is often simply an opportunity to buy low on a talented player who would not otherwise be available. To me it’s a great strategy, because I think you’re seeing a lot of organizations drift towards trying to acquire only better make-up players. And the fact is, ‘bad make-up’ is a huge, broad, very vague tag. It can range from guys with very serious emotional issues, like Milton Bradley, it can range from guys with drinking or substance abuse problems, or it can be a guy who just doesn’t respond that well to coaches, or a guy who’s got a particular– Colby Rasmus’s case; a guy who doesn’t seem to get along with one particular coach, and it’s possible that Colby’s problem is actually much more of a Colby’s dad’s problem than it is a problem with the player himself. The Blue Jays don’t seem to be acquiring the guys with serious psychological issues, or substance abuse issues, they seem to be acquiring the players who just in general don’t get along with the coaching staffs in their current organization– and that’s when you get to the situation where a front office will look at one of its own players and undervalue him, where ‘I’m sick of dealing with this guy,’ or ‘He’s just never going to work out with our coaching staff.’ To me, you’ve got a talented player like a Lawrie or a Rasmus, you get rid of the coach before you get rid of the player. The player is more valuable– harder to replace– than the coach. Very few, if any, Major League front offices look at player-manager conflicts in that fashion, but the Blue Jays are at least looking at this as, ‘Hey, this is an opportunity. It gives us a chance to go get a player for maybe 70 or 80 cents on the dollar.’ ”
You ask what happened to Moneyball and then show some batting averages......OK then
Moneyball was 1999-2006, a lot has changed since then.
You might as well ask why Reagan isn't president any more
Just found it eye-popping that the OBP guy has a team of Mendozas. But they are 20-19 so Beaner is doing his best at "buying" wins.
The A's have been over Vegas' win projection nearly every year since he's been there. Even if the team philosophy is completely different than it was 10 years ago, they are clearly still doing something right.
Yeah, but focusing on OBP in 2012 means you're completely misunderstanding the point of Moneyball. It's not OBPball. OBP is no longer a market inefficiency.
OBP is no longer an inefficiency? Why? Because a handful of teams finally woke up and smelt the coffee?
OBP, is sill, by far the largest inefficency with the majority of Major league baseball teams either a) ignoring OBP completely or b) Paying it lip service and then not really addressing it.
Just look at league OBP, the average has droped in each of the past 3 years. Are teams really emphasizing it? How many ML teams have leadoff hitters with a high OBP due to walks? Surprisingly few.
OBP is going down because pitching is taking over the game. It's also possible that teams read the book and they are emphasizing low walk rate for pitchers.
for the OP - The reason the A's have a terrible BA/OBP is because they don't have good players and that is the reality of being a small/mid market team. The A's during moneyball had several young stars and had enough of a supporting cast. For awhile they were able to rebuild thru some fortuitous trades but at some point the bottom falls out.