An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
LBJackal wrote:Well how do you know it hasn't won a championship yet? Virtually all team's are using their own version of Moneyball nowadays. Guys that Moneyball values highly because they come cheaply (Hatteberg, Bellhorn, etc) no longer come cheaply, because the true value of a hitter is more or less common knowledge now, mostly due to Moneyball. If you mean that the A's have to win a championship, that isn't likely to happen. Not because it's a bad method of winning, but because there are 29 other teams, and the odds are very much against them. If you mean a team that uses every aspect of Moneyball has to win before you're convinced, I don't know that the odds are any better for that happeneing, because it's pretty much just the A' and the cursed Red Sox - and the reason the Red Sox won't win has nothing to do with Moneyball
LBJackal wrote:If you mean that the A's have to win a championship, that isn't likely to happen. Not because it's a bad method of winning, but because there are 29 other teams, and the odds are very much against them.
LBJackal wrote:Seems to work for Boston
But of course, they have popular hitters so that doesn't count. It has to be a horrible offense that leads the majors in runs scored before it's a successful strategy
The fact is, the A's have enough hitting to be competitive. I'm sure if their pitching was worse they'd acquire more hitters, so that they could stay competitive. The idea is to be competitive as best as possible within your budget. Honestly, who do they have other than Chavez, who missed significant time? Nobody. And they're still successful (leading the division - which includes all your Texas sluggers, and Vlad, GA, and formerly Guillen in Anaheim).
Madison wrote:Jackal, what you are missing is that all they preach is Moneyball. Get on base, don't make outs, draw walks, don't steal, OBP is the way to win, we don't need a closer, yadda, yadda, yadda. If that is the way to play baseball, then why don't they have more runs scored? I mean they are in the bottom half of the league for crying out loud. Even the Tigers have outscored them. Where's the production? I'd put my 6 year old on the mound against them. It's really that pathetic of a lineup.
Their success has absolutely nothing to do with Moneyball. It's all starting pitching and I credit them for that. They have done a great job on the pitching side and even Harden looks like he's going to work out well too.
As to bringing Boston into the equation, they have the second highest payroll in the majors. I would expect results for paying that many high profile players. That's not exactly the Moneyball way of thinking.
LBJackal wrote:As for Oakland, they bought the offense that they require to win games; Hatteberg, Kotsay, Kielty, drafted Swisher. Why overpay for an even better offense when they can win the division with the offense they currently have? I think it's agreed that the 2 big Moneyball teams are Boston and Oakland - both are currently in the playoffs if the season ended today - but still people say Moneyball doesn't work. I think that says that they've been doing something right, and if spensing next to nothing on offense because you have good enough pitching is it, then it's still working.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests