Silly Simple Mr. Yoder I, I know you’ve baited me into this.
Unfortunately I cannot allow you to try and attack a concept you don’t even understand. It’s unfair to the blog, it’s unfair to Billy Beane, it’s unfair to the English language, and most of all its unfair to the kids.
I’ll chose to ignore:
1. You’re statement “Moneyball is Broke,” as it makes no sense and is clearly just some ignorant buzz title that means nothing.
2. The fact that Moneyball isn’t designed to win a championship, but to compete yaer after year in an unfair market. It’s like a burger stand trying to stay afloat amongst a Wendys, a Burger King, and a Mcdonalds, the point isn’t to put the other guys out of business, but to stay in business.
Moneyball has, is, and will continue to be overwhelmingly successful.
Let’s first look at your assertion that while Moneyball builds winning ball clubs from 2000-2006 (the better half of a decade), that it can’t win championships.
Lets start by clearing one thing up, the Major League baseball playoff system is absolutely absurd, and in no way crowns the best team in baseball as the ‘World Champion.’ Instead, Major League baseball awards the eight best teams through a process that includes 162 contests, to compete in a miniature tournament that at the absolute most see’s them play 19 games.
One undeniable truth is that in baseball, small sample sizes tell us absolutely nothing. It is a game of percentages where failure is an inevitable part of the game…this is why it takes 162 games to decide who is the best team in baseball, not less than 20.
For years before the Wild Card the most important title in baseball was the pennant, not the World Series. The World Series was a bonus, a novelty.
After all, how could you decide who was the best team in such an absurdly small sample size?
Seven games…One week.
In the last week the two best hitters in baseball have been Miguel Montero, a catcher for the Diamondbacks, and Garret Jones, a utility player for the Pirates.
Montero: .440 4 HR 9 RBI 1.462 OPS
Jones: .379 4 HR 6RBI 1.369 OPS
Compare that to two superstars, Josh Hamilton and Evan Longoria.
Hamilton: .200 1 HR 4 RBI .5600 OPS
Longoria: .120, 2 HR 6 RBI .6180 OPS.
In the last week, or seven games, Hamilton and Longoria have been far worse players than Montero and Jones, however it is clear that Montero and Jones are not better players. This is because it is a small and random sample size.
So to talk about the Oakland Athletics performance in the playoffs is absurd. That would be like trying to figure out the 2008 presidential election by polling only Wasilla, Alaska.
One however might question if the team was built to be good enough to win a championship. Lets review the accolades.
They had the pitching. Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson all led the league in wins once. Zito won the Cy Young one year, and Mulder and Hudson were both runner ups to the Cy Young in various years as well. Keith Foulke, the A’s closer, led the league in saves once. Clearly looking at this the A’s had the pitching staff to build a championship team around. If there is one way to win a small sample, short playoff series, it’s to try and have the best pitching possible. The A’s, for years, had dominant pitching.
The A’s also had a potent line up. Centered around plus players and premium positions, the A’s rallied around their stars Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada. Chavez of course provided great defense as a perennial Gold Glover, and Tejada won an MVP and led the league in RBI. Not to mention, Moneyball itself manufactured a line up that was incredibly potent for the amount of money spent on it. So the teams had the bats and the gloves to win a championship.
Oh…and they were lead by manager Art Howe, who won manager of the year, so they had the leadership.
Quite simply, the A’s lack of World Series is what it is, a fluke. It was unlucky. They were not the first team ever to have a competitive team for a series of straight years without winning a World Series.
In fact their counterpart, the New York Yankees have had high-level winning seasons from a period of 2001-2008. They won 0 World Series in that time frame. Were they bad teams? No, they were very very good teams that got very very unlucky. Same leadership, same stars as the team that won four straight World Series the four years leading up to those dates.
Mr. Yoder I references the Marlins as a team who is more successful than the A’s because they do not use Moneyball. If trading away your best players, getting top dollar prospects for them, and coordinating and raising those prospects until they are in a position to compete for a championship isn’t Moneyball than I’m not exactly sure what is. At least the A’s made it last the better part of the decade where the Marlins have always been a one-year flash in the pan.
So what’s been going wrong the last two/three years for the A’s?
Well let’s look at their plan. Amass a great deal of cheap talent, and go on a run where they are continually competitive while being at a disadvantage in the market place. Well they did that. Their talent grew up though, and while they whiffed at their shot at the title they got a hell of an output from their cast of characters.
Now the A’s are again rebuilding but being extremely competitive while doing it. Ten games below .500 is incredibly good for a team that is ‘rebuilding,’ just ask the Padres or the Nationals. But think how much better they would be if their calculated decisions hadn’t taken the unlikely turn they did.
The A’s decided to invest in Chavez instead of Miguel Tejada. It was the smart choice, Chavez was younger, got on base at a much higher rate, and played stellar defense. However, inexplicably, and against the percentages, Eric Chavez has had an impossibly bad last two years.
Chavez 2007: 90 Games, .240/.306/.446, 15 HR, 46 RBI
Oakland 2007: 76-86
Chavez 2008: 23 Games, .247/.295/.393, 2 HR, 14 RBI
Oakland 2008: 75-86
Hmm…Weird
The Moneyball tradition continued today as the A’s managed to trade Holliday, a player who was gone after the end of the season anyways, for the Cardinals number one and number five prospects. Wow, what a steal.
8 comments:
Welcome to the blog Yard Yoder! Woooo! Yes this was an attempt to bait you, but also an attempt to cut through the hype of moneyball. And look, you couldn't even wait till Part II came out! I'm impressed. Let's take a look and analyze some of your assessments:
1. "For years before the Wild Card the most important title in baseball was the pennant, not the World Series. The World Series was a bonus, a novelty."
2. "After all, how could you decide who was the best team in such an absurdly small sample size?"
Why not get rid of every championship series? Why have a Super Bowl or an NBA finals? Or a World Series? How can you decide a 16 game season in one game? These "small sample sizes" are just vastly unfair. You know what, let's go back and restore the Patriots undefeated season and take that SB away from the Giants, then justice will be served!
Let's go back and give the 1954 Championship to the Cleveland Indians. After all, they won more games than the Giants that year, they deserve the title. Let's erase WIlie Mays' catch from our memories, and Don Larsen's perfect game, and Kirk Gibson's heroics. After all, they were just all a part of a meaningless exhibition of incredibly small sample size between two teams that had already achieved their goal of winning the league's pennant.
Sports would be a lot more exciting if teams just tried to be consistently competitive instead of trying to win titles right? That is the moneyball way!
Forgive me, but I want my teams to win a title.
I have to agree with Mr. Yoder I on this part in regards to moneyball. Moneyball consistently puts the A's in contention, but when it comes to the real deal, the whole enchilada, the World Series, where has that gotten the A's recently? 20 years of no World Series appearances and only two trips out of seven to the ALCS since their 1989 WS win.
Since Beane has taken over for the A's in 1998, they have made 5 playoff appearances with only one tip to the ALCS. The past two seasons, they have finished below .500. And this past offseason, they trade away their best bullpen player for Matt Holliday. Your assertation that Holliday is only a one year player/rent-a-player is dumbfounding. Why give up Street, who is a top 5 reliever in the NL for a rent-a-player? That does not sound like your beloved "Moneyball". Seems to me that the A's are the AL's version of the Pittsburgh Pirates; they get all of these grade A PROSPECTS and when they develop, they ship them off to greener pastures. Moneyball has gone bankrupt and needs its own bailout package.
Anyone who doesn't know that the A's signed Holliday in order to make a push for the playoffs and let him go, or to see how the first half goes and then trade him, does not belong in this argument.
That is plain and simple.
Anyone who does not understand moneyball principles, really shouldn't be arguing against them.
I don't understand teh economy, I'm not going to argue against economists. I don't understand the NFL salary cap, I'm not going to argue Dan Snyder.
The Pirates are the perfect example. The A's and the Pirates have the same revenue problems. Look at what the Pirates have done with that revenue....vs the A's?
Are you sure you're not upset with Oakland for having more money? Why don't you get upset at homeless people while at it? Billy Beane isn't the owner, he doesn't decide how much money the A's spend....He works within a budget.
Ok, first let me say there's nothing I find more shallow and pedantic than this particular debate. To me, MoneyBall is just a buzz word for Billy Beane to cover up the fact that his team can't win anything. MoneyBall and its loyal followers are like the drunk girl at a party, if you ignore it, it will go away. Still, I respect the philosophy behind the principles when applied properly, such as with the Red Sox.
What I can't accept is Yard Yoder's ridiculous statements in his defense of Billy Beane that completely destroy his argument. All this talk of sample sizes is a joke. With this logic, all playoffs in all sports are illegitimate. Every single champion since the beginning of sports is a "fluke". The only legit champs are actually those in European soccer, where there are no playoffs. Also, the assertion that World Series was a "bonus" to winning the pennant is ridiculous. Are the Yankees ever introduced as 39 time AL-Pennant winners, no, of course not! That would be ignorant, just like this debate.
Yard, your points about the homeless and not understanding the economy make your points and the article subsequently, if I may quote Family Guy, shallow and pedantic.
Your point or relegating use to being stupid and ignorant just goes to show how flat and unfounded your points are. To be calling others stupid and ignorant for not agreeing with you makes you, yourself, stupid and ignorant. If the A's gave up what they did in the Holliday trade with Colorado just to "make a run and get rid of him", then A's fans should be glad that Beane is not the owner or in charge anymore.
Your comparison with the A's and Pirates is another flaw. Since Beane took over, how many more WS titles have the A's gotten than the Pirates? Or in your case, the more important, Pennants? The answer: 0.
Let's also take a look at the players the Pirates have let go versus the players the A's have let go. Pirates: Bay(AL MVP candidate, mind you), Nady, LaRoche, McLouth, Morgan and Hinske. The A's: Holliday, Hannahan and Webb. By that list alone, it can be seen that your beloved moneyball concept does not produce better players as of late as the Pirates system does.
Little side note, Pirates have a better record this year than your A's, or is that too small of a sample size?
First things first…the guy above me does not belong in this conversation.
Allow me to show you why.
“If the A's gave up what they did in the Holliday trade with Colorado just to "make a run and get rid of him", then A's fans should be glad that Beane is not the owner or in charge anymore.”
Well…As of the typing of this sentence…Billy Beane is in charge…so Im a little confused as to what universe you are on. I actually would like an answer to this question, I know anonymous posters are too cowardly to live up to their assertions…but please…if you have a time machine tell me what year you are in. Thanks
“Your comparison with the A's and Pirates is another flaw. Since Beane took over, how many more WS titles have the A's gotten than the Pirates? Or in your case, the more important, Pennants? The answer: 0.”
I did not say Pennants were the measure of success by which we should evaluate baseball teams. I was merely pointing out that in the past before the playoff system, the regular season meant more to fans than the 7 game world series at the end for it.
The reason I pointed this out was to establish the importance of sample size, especially when evaluating a general manager who has absolutely zero effect on playoff baseball. I’m sorry if I was unclear, or you were not able to put two and two together, however many other people who have agreed with me on the topic did.
“Let's also take a look at the players the Pirates have let go versus the players the A's have let go. Pirates: Bay(AL MVP candidate, mind you), Nady, LaRoche, McLouth, Morgan and Hinske. The A's: Holliday, Hannahan and Webb. By that list alone, it can be seen that your beloved moneyball concept does not produce better players as of late as the Pirates system does. ”
Umm…what?
Where do even start with this. First I’ll start with the factual inaccuracies.
Hannrahan, was never on the Oakland Athletics. Unless you’re talking about the time machine again. Not to mention you are listing him as a ‘talent,’ when he is absolute horeshit.
Webb…I assume you mean Brandon? He has never been on the A’s either, he has been a Diamondback his entire career…
Holliday, yes he was on the A’s for several months. However I was clearly referring to talent developed.
And when I was talking about talent, I wasn’t walking about who could get rid of the most talent…that would be strange. I was talking about how the team he built was built to be great, and there is no flaw in it you could say that made it not a “championship capable team.”
And not to nitpick, but the list of good pirates players that you randomly decided to insert is laughable. They are solid players, but they are not MVP’s, Gold Glovers, Perennial All Stars or Cy Young Candidates. Yes Jason Bay is very good, if the AL MVP vote was taken today he’d be lucky to finish in the top 15 however.
“Little side note, Pirates have a better record this year than your A's, or is that too small of a sample size?”
Of course that’s a laughably small sample size. Is it your assertion that you would evaluate Billy Beane’s strategy compared to the Pirates strategy for the last 10 years, by evaluating their record through 100 games…as opposed to the last 1600? What?
Please refrain from insulting others when you clearly are not well versed in the topic being discussed.
And if you are to do it, please do not be a coward and do it anonymously.
Thanks.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/#month=7&year=2009
I tend to do a little research before I make my points. The "Hannrahan" you speak of actually is Jack Hannahan, former A's 3B who was traded to the Mariners on July 11 and the Webb you speak of is Ryan Webb who was traded to the Padres on July 6.
The Billy Beane phrase you are quoting, I believe it was, "If the A's gave up what they did in the Holliday trade with Colorado just to "make a run and get rid of him", then A's fans should be glad that Beane is not the owner or in charge anymore.” The owner is indeed a man named John Fisher. I realize Beane owns some 10% of the franchise, but he is not owner, which I said. Again, research is a great friend. Him being in charge of the personnel operations makes me scared enough.
- The "Coward"
Ich denke, dass Sie nicht recht sind. Es ich kann beweisen. Schreiben Sie mir in PM. cialis generika viagra ohne rezept [url=http//t7-isis.org]viagra online[/url]
Post a Comment