Moneyballers - I'm throwing the gauntlet down

[Taylor]

Dare you to tell me your foolish belief in this stupid system of stats and voodoo magic doo-ma-hickey is still the way to win.

Even your Jedi Master, Peter Gammons is now having to resort to finding excuses to defend this baloney,

" Oakland got a lot of notice for drafting high school players after the first couple of rounds. Why is this surprising? The college pitching got taken early. And "Moneyball" isn't about college vs. high school, it's about finding value, and high school players in this draft had more value after the first 2-3 rounds because so many teams (20 of 30 in the first round) went with college players early. A's GM Billy Beane first went with on-base percentage players, then so did most everyone else, and those players got too expensive for one of the four lowest payrolls. Then he turned to defense, which was undervalued [Boston did so last July 31, and won the World Series."

Bravo Gammons, bravo. You are the spalding grey of crap.

Wow, man, just wow with that bold part - I'm so stunned to hear that non-Moneyball players care about nothing more than loading their farm club with non-value players. *Looks over shoulder to make sure noones listening* "Moneyball teams, you're going to stock up on value, shhhhh - don't tell anyone man, it's our secret, LOL!"

Oh, and the second bold part - Here's the other secret about Moneyball *Looks over shoulder again* - Get a really good pitcher, then brag that defense wins championships. Nevermind we wrote a book that trashed Seattle back in the late 90s and early 2000s when their team was built on defense, it didn't have *Makes quote with fingers* VALUE THEN, it does now"

BTW - That wonderful 2002 Moneyball draft? 3 guys are playing in the majors, all are average at best, only one had any value and that was because KC was willing to take him in. And the beauty queen of this draft - stuck in Midland, trust me - I've driven through Midland, that's no beauty pagent!

So come all you statheads with your visions of Michael Lewis bringing you back to glory, come out of your holes and defend your OBP, or better yet - come join me in the dark side, because as you will soon learn after Fuson builds up yet another farm club that'll be stacked to compete, as he's currently 2-0, he's your daddy

BTW - Answer me this, how many chairs did Beane throw during this last draft?

*Crash* Now pick up my gauntlet!

[Fishercat]

The thing is, Moneyball is about finding value, however, Gammons is wrong. The book CLEARLY stated that taking HS pitchers (not HS hitters, who have a similar success rate to college players) was a bad idea, and yet Beane did it anyway, and that just kills the book's argument on the subject. Maybe Beane felt it was worth the risk...but I don't know, it's weird.

About the draft, tell me, as a traditionalist that you are, would you rather have the player with a far higher ceiling but half the success rate of a base player? Basically, I guess Beane is deciding he'd rather take the 3/20 chance that player x will turn into a #2 starter rather than the 7/20 chance that player y will turn into a 5th starter, assuming both ceilings.

The book does state (have you read it instead of going off what Gammons says about it) that the key to the whole strategy is not necessarily OBP, but finding the undervalued asset of the time and attacking. If such a thing is defense and he feels the price is low for the number of runs it creates or saves, then it is something to go for. Gammons is arguing he felt that way, although I disagree with such a statement. When you have to trade a Nomar Garciaparra to get an overpriced GG 1B and a lesser SS, well.

Tell me something, just on this hypothetical sitution. I'll use the classic economics example guns and butter. Suppose that butter will always be worth 10 dollars of productivity and guns will always be worth 10 dollars of productivity (just for instance). Now, in 1999, say butter cost 7 dollars for a unit while guns cost 20 dollars for a unit. The butter has more value since you can get it at under market value while guns cost over market value. Five years from then, the values switch where guns cost 7 per unit while butter costs 20 per unit. The guns now have more value. I think that is what Gammons is saying. Not that defense is suddenly more important than on-base ability, rather that getting a guy like Alex Cora is cheaper than getting a guy like Mark Bellhorn. Do I agree? Not really, but that's what he is saying and there is some logic.

It's funny, today I had my history final where I had to compare the beliefs of Alexis de Tocqueville to what Henry David Thoreau would do in the sense. I said they agreed in theory, but when the action came along they diverged slightly to an activist and passive role. I consider myself a HDT to "moneyball's" ADT. I don't agree with what Beane is doing right now. Defense is important but it is not a facet to be overbought, as even the 8 best fielders in baseball can't stop a ball from going out of the park or past the hitter's bat.

I think the belief system has definite merit. The Red Sox did win with a similar belief structure, but Theo learned to adapt more than I think most people do who follow the system. He sucked it up and did invest in defense and he decided to put 8 million dollars into a pitcher who is unlikely to have over 90 innings in a year, and it worked. Of course, Theo runs a basic sabermetric type system rather than a moneyball system since he has oodles of cash to work with.

I do have one main problem with Moneyball on the whole: too rigid. The GMs seem to get it, they do adapt and get specific players when they are necessary (a guy like Dave Roberts for a speed deprived team and a team that could use a guy like that on the bench). The problem a lot of people who subscribe to the system have is that they follow it verbatim rather than altering for the situation. The last thing a team needs when they have 3 pinch hitters who have a lot of power is another power PH, they can afford to take a low power or even a low OBP guy if they have a need for contact. The GMs who base their acquisitions on what is called the moneyball philosophy realize that value isn't always value, and need is realistic.

So basically, I still agree with the philosophy presented in Moneyball on the whole, but to refute the statistical evidence presented in the book is going pretty far out of bounds in my book. If you're going to say drafting HS pitchers is risky, you better have a really good HS pitcher to take if you are to do it. If you're going to say defense is undervalued, prove it. Cabrera and Renteria both got big contracts in spite of middle of the road bats.

[Saber]

The key to performance analysis has always been performance. That the A's suck now is no more an indictment of their approach than that of the Rangers pitching for so many years. Execution is vital. An inability to undertand all methods and use them all to greater success is merely foolish bias. The A's have won for years on a limited budget with their approach, and you wait until they lose to pounce. The Rangers have sucked for years, and you wait until they succeed to tout them. It's petty.

And Thoreau was a Kantian fool.

[Fishercat]

I figured a comment on Thoreau would come out. He was a bit...odd. Of course, when I get thrown in jail, I'm so using his excuse.

[Saber]

And his name is Lrrr, not Lurr. His wife is Ndnd.

[joek]

And through it all the WIN METHOD has been aresounding success for over a decade and counting. Therefore everyone can discuss and debate each and every other method to determine the future of young talent, while the WIN METHOD keeps marching along singing the song of winning.

[Hmark6]

Originally Posted by Saber An inability to understand all methods and use them all to greater success is merely foolish bias.

First of all JoeK, what you said has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of his thread. And If you read all of the posts, Saber points out what you and WM are completely blind to. And he did it 3 posts before you posted that nonsense. Remarkable.

Rep for you Saber, well done.

[joek]

It has everything to do with this thread. The thread is about moneyball and its preceived success or lack there of how it has built a team and or selected players. My point is simply that the WIN METHOD for the past 12 years has had more proven success than any other system or philosophy used in baseball. Right on target to the thread.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Saber The key to performance analysis has always been performance.

Duhhhhh, this is news. Even a moron like Gammons know this!

Originally Posted by Saber That the A's suck now is no more an indictment of their approach than that of the Rangers pitching for so many years.

Really??? Because the Rangers problem pre-Fuson/Buck were to draft hard throwers who couldn't hit a barn, rush them up to the majors then quickly dump them when they struggle. Not only that but Oklahoma City has wind gusts that push the ball to the left-field wall so pitchers there are taught to get balls to go to the right Bad Credit OK Park in Arlington has a wind gust that causes the ball to go to the right-field so pitchers have to be re-taught to have balls go to either grounders or to the left. Oakland has this problem too????? WOW!

Fuson went after pitchability guys who could paint, reduce pitch count and reduce wear and tear on a bullpen, Buck wanted the team to go after leftys (Fortunately for us so did Fuson). The end result is we've got 3 guys who have the potential to be #2 guys, Danks and Volquez in AA (Volquez is the best of both however, if he stays the course he could be special) and Diamond in High A who should soon go to AA.

Originally Posted by Saber Execution is vital.

Hold on, hold on a sec - let me do some calculations....lets see, carry the one, add a seven, minus this...ahhh yes, Execution = Performance, or in simple terms....DUHHHHHH

Originally Posted by Saber The A's have won for years on a limited budget with their approach, and you wait until they lose to pounce. The Rangers have sucked for years, and you wait until they succeed to tout them. It's petty. And Thoreau was a Kantian fool.

Hi, Saber - welcome to 2005. When you get a free moment, feel free to check out the archives on the old board (If they're still there) and so a search for 'Gammons' or 'Moneyball', or better yet - do a search of my posts and count how many times I've criticized both and called Moneyball a joke. You may need some extra paper because the number should be close to infinity. Then come back and ask for forgiveness for doubting my wonderful knowledge that Moneyball was crap then and is crap now.

And also do me a favor, go back and check out the 2001 "Expensive draft" and compare it to the 2002 Wonderful OBP draft (I'll save you some time - check my old posts, I've harped on it plenty of times). You'll be so amazed you just may flush your copy of MB down the toilet!

And since the Rangers are over .500, or so-called "succeeding" please write down the following, just so we don't have this confusion anymore:

Tom Hicks sucks
John Hart sucks
Buck Showalter is good when he's a GM only, when he pulls a power move (Like he did last year) he sucks
Orel is great, but he did backstab Fuson last year, so he sorta sucks
Grady Fuson is our daddy! Ask Beane if he could use a few more "expensive disaster drafts"
Moneyball was a joke in 02, 03, 04, 05, and will continue to be. You want to know the "Art of winning an unfair game"? I've said it before and will say it again - get Beane to handle trades and nothing else, get Fuson to run your minors, and get Peterson to handle your pitching.



Wow - I pounced on our management while we were doing well, what am I thinking????

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Fishercat The thing is, Moneyball is about finding value, however, Gammons is wrong. The book CLEARLY stated that taking HS pitchers (not HS hitters, who have a similar success rate to college players) was a bad idea, and yet Beane did it anyway, and that just kills the book's argument on the subject. Maybe Beane felt it was worth the risk...but I don't know, it's weird.

To a point I agree with why Beane shies away from high schoolers, they're less mature, not as comfortable going on road trips as well as less disclipline with money/girls, etc.

Originally Posted by Fishercat About the draft, tell me, as a traditionalist that you are, would you rather have the player with a far higher ceiling but half the success rate of a base player? Basically, I guess Beane is deciding he'd rather take the 3/20 chance that player x will turn into a #2 starter rather than the 7/20 chance that player y will turn into a 5th starter, assuming both ceilings.

Going with the above odds you're talking about a first round high schooler as opposed to a sixth-seventh round college guy, I think the answer is obvious. In any draft, no matter the sport I've always believed you take the best player available no matter the position, in the NFL the saying is "If you draft for need you'll reach"

Originally Posted by Fishercat The book does state (have you read it instead of going off what Gammons says about it) that the key to the whole strategy is not necessarily OBP, but finding the undervalued asset of the time and attacking. If such a thing is defense and he feels the price is low for the number of runs it creates or saves, then it is something to go for. Gammons is arguing he felt that way, although I disagree with such a statement. When you have to trade a Nomar Garciaparra to get an overpriced GG 1B and a lesser SS, well.

Yup - bought the book and for the most part enjoyed a bit of it, what I didn't like was that while you can't say "He's lying", he did leave out quite a bit of grey info that if added would seriously diminish the accomplishments of the A's as well as Lewis' arguments. I go off on Gammons because for 3 years he gave us a healthy dose of Rangerhater and Moneyballsuckup, not surprising considering he considers Beane a close friend (As well as Buck Showalter which explains why he used to rip Fuson, but can't now as he no longer has a close source).

BTW - I'm not a traditionalist, but I've always believed in defense...and going after values in a draft, that's common sense, not a "secret approach" - you grab the guys that can make trades, which is why IMO you draft a bunch of pitchers, one good pitcher will net you 3 good prospects. Or if it's later in the draft you take your chances in the hopes that you'll get another Ian Kinsler.

Originally Posted by Fishercat Tell me something, just on this hypothetical sitution. I'll use the classic economics example guns and butter. Suppose that butter will always be worth 10 dollars of productivity and guns will always be worth 10 dollars of productivity (just for instance). Now, in 1999, say butter cost 7 dollars for a unit while guns cost 20 dollars for a unit. The butter has more value since you can get it at under market value while guns cost over market value. Five years from then, the values switch where guns cost 7 per unit while butter costs 20 per unit. The guns now have more value. I think that is what Gammons is saying. Not that defense is suddenly more important than on-base ability, rather that getting a guy like Alex Cora is cheaper than getting a guy like Mark Bellhorn. Do I agree? Not really, but that's what he is saying and there is some logic.

In a perfect world butter will be worth as much as a gun, however that's not the case, 3 years from now butter could be worth $5, the gun could be worth $35. If you want to say one club was successful, be honest and say they won because they had 3 diamonds at $100 value. Here's my claim with MB - they claimed in the book that they go with guys who have a better chance to make a success, big success or not. Now they're going with the route they criticized the traditionalist on, just like I said in an earlier post on another thread, MB should be renamed "Moneyball, how we got lucky on a sixth rounder, a soft tossing painter, and a player Texas was too cheap to sign a year before"

Originally Posted by Fishercat It's funny, today I had my history final where I had to compare the beliefs of Alexis de Tocqueville to what Henry David Thoreau would do in the sense. I said they agreed in theory, but when the action came along they diverged slightly to an activist and passive role. I consider myself a HDT to "moneyball's" ADT. I don't agree with what Beane is doing right now. Defense is important but it is not a facet to be overbought, as even the 8 best fielders in baseball can't stop a ball from going out of the park or past the hitter's bat. I think the belief system has definite merit. The Red Sox did win with a similar belief structure, but Theo learned to adapt more than I think most people do who follow the system. He sucked it up and did invest in defense and he decided to put 8 million dollars into a pitcher who is unlikely to have over 90 innings in a year, and it worked. Of course, Theo runs a basic sabermetric type system rather than a moneyball system since he has oodles of cash to work with.

The Red Sox won with Curt Schilling and Pedro Martinez, per-i-od. Without Curt the Yanks would have mowed the grass with the Sox and odds are they may not have been in the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Fishercat I do have one main problem with Moneyball on the whole: too rigid. The GMs seem to get it, they do adapt and get specific players when they are necessary (a guy like Dave Roberts for a speed deprived team and a team that could use a guy like that on the bench). The problem a lot of people who subscribe to the system have is that they follow it verbatim rather than altering for the situation. The last thing a team needs when they have 3 pinch hitters who have a lot of power is another power PH, they can afford to take a low power or even a low OBP guy if they have a need for contact. The GMs who base their acquisitions on what is called the moneyball philosophy realize that value isn't always value, and need is realistic. So basically, I still agree with the philosophy presented in Moneyball on the whole, but to refute the statistical evidence presented in the book is going pretty far out of bounds in my book. If you're going to say drafting HS pitchers is risky, you better have a really good HS pitcher to take if you are to do it. If you're going to say defense is undervalued, prove it. Cabrera and Renteria both got big contracts in spite of middle of the road bats.

MB may be stats-related, but when it's crunch time you go with instincts, you can't teach that with numbers, but I hear your point, still say MB is a joke.....

[A'sDiehard]

Moneyball is DEAD.

[General]

Moneyball/Win Method=Crap.

Its that simple. You guys post and post and write. It's that simple.

[Providence A's]

what has win method done for you lately? been 5 years since you won a championship...going on 6