Return to Baseball Leftovers

what exactly is moneyball?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Amazinz » Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:56 pm

Registered_Guest wrote:The key is to WIN the World Series....not lose 1st round every year. Correct??

You're a bright one and had you not brought this to my attention I may have never realized it. ;-7 The fact that Oakland has been unable to win a World Series is a somewhat valid argument against their methods and it will always be a black stain for Beane until he overcomes it. But the truth of the matter is that all playoff series in baseball are a crapshoot. Would you agree that the better team won the World Series last year? Absolutely not. Everyone, except delusional Sox fans, will agree that the Yankees had the best team last year but they ran into the hottest team in baseball and lost. In the last four years the Yankees have made it into the playoffs four times. I think in each of those four years the Yankees had the most talented club and yet they only won one?

tlef316 wrote:your point about the Angels increasing payroll is well taken, but i dont believe its fair to call anaheim(pop 328,014 as of the year 2000) a huge market and praise oakland(pop 399,484 as of the year 2000) for its small market success. it isnt fair, IMO

The California (err Anaheim) Angels have a much larger viewing audience and a much larger television contract. Similar populations do not guarantee similar markets.

I don't think "Moneyball" is the end-all strategy (or perfect) to building a winning baseball club. Obviously the modern Yankees have used a different strategy very effectively. But I can't understand people who won't give credit where credit is due. People spit at "Moneyball" principles as if there's some other "magical" reason the A's win ball games.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby tlef316 » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:03 pm

i dont spit at moneyball or its principles. i realize the A's have been very sucessful using it. they should have and would have beaten the yankees in 2001 had it not been for jeter's backhand toss. they had the better team.

i just dont think we should consider beane the genius his follower claim he is until his team wins a playoff series, especially with that pitching
tlef316
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1733
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 3 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: central jersey

Postby Pogotheostrich » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:33 pm

tlef316 wrote:i fail to see how minnesota is emulating oakland's gameplan. just becuase a team is developing a farm system and keeping a small payroll doesnt mean they are copying beane.

the oakland system is based on big time front of the rotation starters, drawing walks and replacing your stars with new prospects once they hit Free agency. it also stresses the drafting of mature college hitters. their core players, except for chavez, all attended college(mulder, hudson, zito, crosby,harden, durazo)

minnesota's sucess has come from a very diferent approach. minnesota has never had big time pitcher(Radke?) until santana developed this year. minnesota relies heavily on great defense and team speed to achieve victory. minnesota is known for drafting, signing and trading for HS players and guys with good "tools" becuase they have higher upside as players(mauer, morneau, Hunter,guzman, santana, cuddyer) this is something that the A's usually shy away from. the twins also realize the importance of having a strong back of the bullpen(despite not being able to afford guardado and hawkins), something beane considers overrated.

they may both be small market teams, but their approaches are not the same.

your point about the Angels increasing payroll is well taken, but i dont believe its fair to call anaheim(pop 328,014 as of the year 2000) a huge market and praise oakland(pop 399,484 as of the year 2000) for its small market success. it isnt fair, IMO

I totally agree. Just cause Minnesota is winning with a small payroll doesn't mean they are emulating Beane. They use a very different approach.
Image
Pogotheostrich
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 20399
(Past Year: -1018)
Joined: 9 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: St. Louis

Postby ocmusicjunkie » Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:59 pm

tlef316 wrote:
o, i actually plan to read it. im sure its very interesting. i just dont really agree with it right now. i think the long term effectiveness of the moneyball strategy will be clear by 2007 when the A's lose at least 1 of the big 3.

i think that when that happens, guys like beane will realize that without godlike pitching it makes more sense to draft guys with great baseball tools and potential, rather than above-average college players with high walk totals.

i could be wrong, and i guess that's why im not an MLB GM


I love people who disagree with things they have never even read. "Hey I have an idea. I'll just listen to everyone's biased opinion on the book, rather than reading it. Then I'll form my own biased opinion".

And moneyball is NOT just drafting kids with high walk totals. :-[
Help please:
http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1086524#1086524


Harden- 2.15 ERA, 7.61 K/9
Peavy - 2.89 ERA, 10.10 K/9

[b]Lets go Rich![/b]
ocmusicjunkie
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 828
Joined: 6 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Registered_Guest » Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:04 pm

When you state Oakland hasn't won, people say it's because they don't have enough $$.....

Then those same people want to gloat every year when Oakland goes to the playoffs & gets knocked out in Round 1 -- with a small payroll.

Bottom line: You have accomplished nothing until you win -- it isn't a somewhat valid argument -- it is the whole entire argument against it. The Bills lost 4 straight Super Bowls -- what are they remembered for?? Exactly, never winning the big one.

I think Minnesota & Florida should write books too. Florida can talk about how an awesome up the middle defense (I-rod/Castillo/A-Gonz/Pierre) won them the title. Minnesota's got as far as Oakland has, so obviously they deserve one too.
Registered_Guest
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 953
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Amazinz » Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:47 pm

Registered_Guest wrote:When you state Oakland hasn't won, people say it's because they don't have enough $$.....

Then those same people want to gloat every year when Oakland goes to the playoffs & gets knocked out in Round 1 -- with a small payroll.

Bottom line: You have accomplished nothing until you win -- it isn't a somewhat valid argument -- it is the whole entire argument against it. The Bills lost 4 straight Super Bowls -- what are they remembered for?? Exactly, never winning the big one.

I think Minnesota & Florida should write books too. Florida can talk about how an awesome up the middle defense (I-rod/Castillo/A-Gonz/Pierre) won them the title. Minnesota's got as far as Oakland has, so obviously they deserve one too.

Bottom line: Oakland has won. Over the last four years they've won more games than the Yankees. Now chew on that for a minute before you go spouting that it means nothing because they haven't won a championship. I guess Atlanta's division titles mean nothing also because they've only won one championship. Winning in the regular season is important because without it there is no post-season. MIN & FLA pale compare the amount of winning OAK is able to do. Yes, FLA won a W.S. and that's the ultimate prize. I'm not trying to take anything away from them but it's not fair to disregard the A's success because they haven't won a W.S. over the last four years.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby tlef316 » Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:56 pm

ocmusicjunkie wrote:
tlef316 wrote:
o, i actually plan to read it. im sure its very interesting. i just dont really agree with it right now. i think the long term effectiveness of the moneyball strategy will be clear by 2007 when the A's lose at least 1 of the big 3.

i think that when that happens, guys like beane will realize that without godlike pitching it makes more sense to draft guys with great baseball tools and potential, rather than above-average college players with high walk totals.

i could be wrong, and i guess that's why im not an MLB GM


I love people who disagree with things they have never even read. "Hey I have an idea. I'll just listen to everyone's biased opinion on the book, rather than reading it. Then I'll form my own biased opinion".

And moneyball is NOT just drafting kids with high walk totals. :-[


i know what the A's are trying to do becuase i follow baseball. i disagree with the way the A's make their draft picks, and i dont need to read the book to figure that out.

IMO, it makes no sense for a "small market team" to take players who, for the most part, have limited upside. i think that beane, although sucessful, has failed to see that his 3 Aces are, by far the biggest reason for the team's success. it obviously wasnt giambi, art howe or tejada. you can make a case for rick peterson, but IMO, those guys would have become stars without him.

the MLB draft is all about potential. most players take at least 3-4 years to reach the bigs, and 90% of the prospects drafted never do anything worth while. i think it makes sense to draft the guys with great natural talent who have the chance to be great players. im not saying disciplined guys like nick swisher are useless, becuase that is obviously not the case. i just think it makes more sense to take a shot at getting a great player, rather than drafting someone who fits into one narrow category.

Players have to be given talent, but they can learn discipline. i think that the moneyballers are being a little short-sighted in that regard.
tlef316
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1733
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 3 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: central jersey

Postby Strasil42 » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:11 pm

Lol, people who talk about moneyball without even reading it crack me up. Cubsfan had all the same horrible arguements that tlef316 is using. Read the book. For you to call the a's last 4 seasons a disappointment just shows your stupidity.

this is the same guy who claim you dont need a good closer to win.


Billy beane never said this. READ THE BOOK.
Strasil42
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4294
(Past Year: -53)
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Omaha

Postby tlef316 » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:26 pm

Strasil42 wrote:Lol, people who talk about moneyball without even reading it crack me up. Cubsfan had all the same horrible arguements that tlef316 is using. Read the book. For you to call the a's last 4 seasons a disappointment just shows your stupidity.

this is the same guy who claim you dont need a good closer to win.


Billy beane never said this. READ THE BOOK.


explain it to me then, since you know so much. why is it better to draft these players? how many of them have become all stars? why is it the best way to go? i'm very open to listening to anyone's argument, but i think that things need to be proven on the field, not in the minds of michael lewis and billy beane. i think moneyball could work in theory, but the fact is, it hasnt yet. lots of things work in theory, but never pan out.

the titanic
ryan leaf
the XFL
steve spurrier's offense at the pro level
rocky 5

you can defend moneyball all you want, and you are right that my opinion is not totally informed until i understand lewis' entire philosophy. but i have yet to see anyone on this board give me solid counter argument other than "read the book" it seems that you may be the ones who are misinformed, since you can give no solid facts that prove that the way billy beane drafts HITTERS leads to a winning baseball team. you're giving me the impression that you are so caught up in the billy beane hype that you are unable to step back and judge the results in an unbiased fashion.

again, if anyone wants to give me some solid proof moneyball works, ill be very willing to listen. i dont have time to opn the book this second, but i promise to give it a try in the near future. i just believe that baseball games and championships are won on the field, not in the head of a couple of self-proclaimed geniuses.

edit to say that i never called the A's a failure. (at least i dont remember saying that) if i did, i didnt mean it. sucess is a very relative thing. the A's are sucessful in the sense that they have made the playoffs for 4 straight years, but IMO, losing in the first round four times does not prove the moneyball system to the point that it should be treated as baseball's bible
tlef316
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1733
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 3 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: central jersey

Postby kimchi_chigae » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:37 pm

this has turned into a pretty good discussion ;-D

u know what i would like to see? place the the A's in the AL East and make them play the Red Sox and Yankees twice as much as they play them being on the AL West. i think that can be a better indication if the A's can compete with big market teams. i'm not saying the AL West is weak, cuz it's not, they usually have at least two other teams, aside from the A's, who have good seasons.

since JP Ricciardi became the GM in toronto the only thing he talks about is this moneyball thingy. i've been pretty happy with the work he has done with the Jays so far and i can't wait for next year to see if it's gonna work or it was all a waste of time. was last year, the jays won 86 games, a fluke? this year has been pretty hard because the offense wasn't able to produce as they did in 2003. the problem in 2003 was the picthing, but it has got better this year with Lilly and Batista. will the jays get it together on 2005 and prove that moneyball really does work? i just don't know...
kimchi_chigae Beginner
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 14259
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 27 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Osaka Jail

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron