How about some criticism of Beane?

[xmbush]

No apology necessary.....

I agree that the Sox and A's are on COMPLETELY different playing levels.....

I was just stating that the Sox are....at their core....a moneyball team....

and I will also grant that the Sox and yanks can afford risks that no other team can....

Ok.... enough of the thread hijack....

[RAmst23]

Yea, being a Moneyball team isn't about signing the guys with high OBP and power. Every GM does that. What Beane's "Moneyball system" accomplishes is getting the most bang for your buck, maximizing your output. Beane would love Beltran, RJ, and ARod, but he can't afford them.

Giving any team a Moneyball label is stupid, because it's just teams trying to get the best value for their dollar.

[Lofunzo]

Giving any team a Moneyball label is stupid, because it's just teams trying to get the best value for their dollar.

And even the Yankees do that.

[ramble2]

Yea, being a Moneyball team isn't about signing the guys with high OBP and power. Every GM does that. What Beane's "Moneyball system" accomplishes is getting the most bang for your buck, maximizing your output. Beane would love Beltran, RJ, and ARod, but he can't afford them.

Giving any team a Moneyball label is stupid, because it's just teams trying to get the best value for their dollar.

It's not simply trying to get value for the dollar, it's about how you define value. Moneyball (as I understand it) is about discovering skill sets that are undervalued by most or every other team, and spending money to acquire players with those skill sets. This is especially well-suited to teams with small budgets, as the players you are pursuing are undervalued by the market and can be obtained at a discount.

There is not a static skill set that defines a moneyball player. Which skill sets are undervalued changes as the general market shifts which skills are valued. And, of course, it's not as simple as laid out here. Part of discovering undervalued skill sets is discovering useful skill sets.

Just like any other strategy, there are those who do it well and those who do it poorly. Those who anticipate shifts in markets, and are best at discovering useful undervalued skill sets will put together the best squads. There is also a component to Moneyball that involves developing players that are overvalued by the market (e.g., tall, strong fastball pitchers), and trading them for undervalued players.

[xmbush]

Quote:
________________________________________________________
There is also a component to Moneyball that involves developing players that are overvalued by the market (e.g., tall, strong fastball pitchers), and trading them for undervalued players.
________________________________________________________

I am not entirely sure that this is true. If you look at the origional "Money ball draft" (Swisher, Brown, Blanton, etc.).... The two things those guys had in common were that they didn't have the "look" that the toolsy teams would go for. The other thing they had in common was that they would accept FAR less than what it took at sign first round draft picks.

When drafting, signing the guy who has the 97 mph fastball is a LOT more expensive than signing the guy who throws 88-91 but doesn't walk anyone.

Don't get me wrong.... if you have an overvalued player, you should sell high.... no question.

However, on a limited payroll (e.g. the A's).... an overvalued player....most likely.... will want to (and WILL be) be PAID like an overvalued player (thus taking away the 'let's find someone under-rated' philosophy).