Moneyball

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I've never liked the stand around and wait for the three run home run aspect of it. Because occasionally, the three run homer just isn't happening and you're left with your pants down.

 

I think that's often a misconstrued part of the strategy. You don't literally wait around for the three run home run. The main key is to reach base and avoid outs. That in turn translates into runs.

I've always felt that there are situations where it pays to be agressive. If a pitcher is lights out all night, and you can go from first to third on a single to set up a sac fly, it might be better than just going to second and watching the next guy fly out.

Oh certainly, you would always like to take the extra base, no matter what the situation. The question is, what is the tradeoff? Is your speedster going to hit like Doug Glanville? If that's the case, then he's probably not worth it.

 

The A's do have some players with decent speed. Eric Byrnes has 10 steals in 11 attempts. Mark Kotsay, Bobby Kielty, Bobby Crosby, and Mark McLemore are all good runners. They just don't get noticed because the A's don't use the stolen base often.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The possibily that a wild pitch or something occurs during the AB that allows the runner to move to 3rd which depending on the number of outs might allow the runner to score on an out. If the runners on third, a mistake by the pitcher might allow the runner to score.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Moneyball Explained

[Brett Favre 0]

Read the article, great article, I think I get it.

 

But this still doesn't explain why a team like the A's would lose in the postseason.

 

And IMO a player who doesn't decline in the postseason is a clutch hitter. Jeter is an example of this. There's always a player who bats .250 and hits .250 in the postseason, so there's always exceptions to that rule just like there is to the studies of Moneyball.

 

The Marlins won a World Series, partially because of their speed. The threat of Pierre and Castillo stealing bases takes away an advantage for the pitcher on the batter. If you have a player who stole 60 bases on first, the pitcher will be distracted, allowing the hitter to get the advantage. So when you play in the playoffs, those stats that have been posted during the season can affect opposing players tremendously, even if you don't attempt to steal a base in the postseason. That's why stealing bases can be used effectively.

 

The same thing can be said about bunts. If you are a player who sacrafices a ton during the season, the player at the corners would be charging in, giving you an advantage if you decide not to bunt. Statistics that are posted during the season will affect the opposing team's judgment, that's why the A's never win in the postseason. They never try anything out of the ordinary, or take a chance.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

But this still doesn't explain why a team like the A's would lose in the postseason.

 

The only rational explanation I can give is bad luck. The A's are certainly not the only team to suffer such a drought. The Houston Astros have lost six consecutive playoff series.

 

And IMO a player who doesn't decline in the postseason is a clutch hitter. Jeter is an example of this. There's always a player who bats .250 and hits .250 in the postseason, so there's always exceptions to that rule just like there is to the studies of Moneyball.

 

There are exceptions, as there will always be outliers to the rule. But its a question of normal statistical variance vs. true clutch ability. All I can say is that if you look at players who have accumulated large numbers of postseason at bats, their postseason numbers tend to match their career numbers.

 

The Marlins won a World Series, partially because of their speed. The threat of Pierre and Castillo stealing bases takes away an advantage for the pitcher on the batter. If you have a player who stole 60 bases on first, the pitcher will be distracted, allowing the hitter to get the advantage. So when you play in the playoffs, those stats that have been posted during the season can affect opposing players tremendously, even if you don't attempt to steal a base in the postseason. That's why stealing bases can be used effectively.

 

Studies have been run that show there's no significant difference in hitting when there is a speedster at first. It is not to say that effect doesn't exist, but there's no real evidence behind it.

 

The same thing can be said about bunts. If you are a player who sacrafices a ton during the season, the player at the corners would be charging in, giving you an advantage if you decide not to bunt. Statistics that are posted during the season will affect the opposing team's judgment, that's why the A's never win in the postseason. They never try anything out of the ordinary, or take a chance.

 

By the same token, the corners playing back would give you an advantage if you DO decide to bunt. Ramon Hernandez won game 1 of the ALDS by laying down a bunt base hit.

[NoCalMike 0]

Read the article, great article, I think I get it.

 

But this still doesn't explain why a team like the A's would lose in the postseason.

 

And IMO a player who doesn't decline in the postseason is a clutch hitter. Jeter is an example of this. There's always a player who bats .250 and hits .250 in the postseason, so there's always exceptions to that rule just like there is to the studies of Moneyball.

 

The Marlins won a World Series, partially because of their speed. The threat of Pierre and Castillo stealing bases takes away an advantage for the pitcher on the batter. If you have a player who stole 60 bases on first, the pitcher will be distracted, allowing the hitter to get the advantage. So when you play in the playoffs, those stats that have been posted during the season can affect opposing players tremendously, even if you don't attempt to steal a base in the postseason. That's why stealing bases can be used effectively.

 

The same thing can be said about bunts. If you are a player who sacrafices a ton during the season, the player at the corners would be charging in, giving you an advantage if you decide not to bunt. Statistics that are posted during the season will affect the opposing team's judgment, that's why the A's never win in the postseason. They never try anything out of the ordinary, or take a chance.

You mean like Ramon Hernandez bunt/singling in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth last year against the Red Sox?

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm not sure comparing the A's to the Astros is a good comparison. The Astros were in the playoffs for the most part because some NL Central jobber had to make it. I never took them seriously as any sort of real contender, and wasn't surprised when the Braves or whoever would wax them.

 

The A's are a different story. They have been on the brink of winning several series in recent years, but for whatever reason can't get it done. Sometimes they seem to just choke (I mean how the hell did they lose to the Twins after being up 2-0?).

 

The play that seems to define the modern A's is Jeter making the insane flip to the plate to get Jeremy Giambi out. In essence, the Yankees were able to do little things to win, whereas the A's didn't (in this case, Giambi didn't slide).

[Brett Favre 0]

You mean like Ramon Hernandez bunt/singling in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth last year against the Red Sox?

Exactly. If they did things like that more often, they'd probably have a ring right now.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm not sure comparing the A's to the Astros is a good comparison. The Astros were in the playoffs for the most part because some NL Central jobber had to make it. I never took them seriously as any sort of real contender, and wasn't surprised when the Braves or whoever would wax them.

 

In 1997 that could have been the case. But the '98 and '99 squads won 102 and 97 games, respectively. That streak also includes losses in 1980, '86, and 2001.