Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
EVIL~! alkeiper

Moneyball

Recommended Posts

Don't you mean drafted out of college?

 

And I think Jason Giambi was very much out of their ideal mold. An incredibly disciplined hitter, who took walks, waited for his pitch, and crushed the heck out of it.

 

I would note that list doesn't include Joe Blanton, their next good pitcher. He was a college draftee as well. Same with Nick Swisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope the A's finally win a playoff series this year. Obviously beyond the obvious reason of being a fan but also to shut up the crowd who write off the way the A's run their team because of their Game 5 failures. If their philosophy wasn't working for them then they wouldn't be making it to the playoffs every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you mean drafted out of college?

Yeah. I thought that's what I said in my post.

 

And I think Jason Giambi was very much out of their ideal mold.  An incredibly disciplined hitter, who took walks, waited for his pitch, and crushed the heck out of it.

 

I wasn't doubting Giambi as fitting the mold of an OBP-heavy masher (which is certainly one of the virtues that Moneyball applauds) but, rather, as a college stud with a proven track record.

 

Of course, after doing a little bit of additional research, I found that Giambi hit .397 through his college career and was the Big West Conference Freshman of the Year in 1990.

 

*smacks himself on the head*

 

I would note that list doesn't include Joe Blanton, their next good pitcher.  He was a college draftee as well.  Same with Nick Swisher.

 

I think Gleeman pulled together the list of players from the current A's roster, so that's why Swisher and Blanton are absent. It should be interesting to see how Mark Teahen does with the Royals, though, since I believe he was one of the draft picks that the book talked about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oakland also seemed to do very well in this year's draft(2004) drafting guys like Kurt Suzuki, Dan Putnam and Landon Powell. I also like how they take guys who have a "break out" senior season ala Ryan Jones.

 

Suzuki hit .413 in his final year, .350 in the year before and .392 the year before that with OPS' of 1.213, .903 and .994.

 

Landon Powell hit .327 in his final year, .335 and .292 in his 3 college seasons with OPS' of 1.035, 1.000 and .835.

 

Ryan Jones hit .400 in his final year, .264 and .260 in his 3 college seasons with OPS' of 1.334, .706 and .699.

 

Adjusted for Park Factor and Strength of Schedule: Their 2004 seasons as of May 30th. Credit Hardball Times

Kurt Suzuki: 1.261 OPS

Dan Putnam: 1.123 OPS

Richard Robnett: 1.168 OPS

Landon Powell: 1.114 OPS

Ryan Jones: 1.338

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would note that list doesn't include Joe Blanton, their next good pitcher.  He was a college draftee as well.  Same with Nick Swisher.

Also add first base prospect Dan Johnson who was a 2nd round pick in the "Moneyball Draft". Him, Blanton, and Swisher will all likely be key players on next year's team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure about Moneyball but from what I've heard it doesn't seem to be well rounded baseball. Most of it involves getting a group of guys who can just jack it out of the park, but not doing little things to win.

 

People rely too much on stats. Yeah, the Red Sox can hit a ton, but they don't field very well, don't run bases all that well, etc. Ditto the Cubs. The Cubs miss the cutoff man, run bases for shit, don't turn 2 when needed, and generally lack baseball know how (though I doubt the Cubs would really fall into the Moneyball scheme payroll wise).

 

The concept of winning with a smaller payroll is a good one, and the Marlins showed it could be done last year. Thing is, the Marlins won with pitching, timely hitting, speed, and being lucky as hell. In other words, all things that Moneyball doesn't account for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not 100% sure about Moneyball but from what I've heard it doesn't seem to be well rounded baseball. Most of it involves getting a group of guys who can just jack it out of the park, but not doing little things to win.

 

Then you've heard the backlash from announcers and columnists, who love to bash innovation, but have no real idea what Moneyball is about.

 

They are called little things because they are exactly that, little things. They pale in comparison to true skills, whether they are hitting, fielding, or pitching. Fundamentals? This is the elite level of baseball, and any player completely incapable of doing the "little things" probably isn't a major league caliber player.

 

People rely too much on stats. Yeah, the Red Sox can hit a ton, but they don't field very well, don't run bases all that well, etc. Ditto the Cubs. The Cubs miss the cutoff man, run bases for shit, don't turn 2 when needed, and generally lack baseball know how (though I doubt the Cubs would really fall into the Moneyball scheme payroll wise).

 

First off, the stats CAN measure these things. Stats can tell you how good a fielder someone is, how many outs a team loses on the basepaths, and how many double plays they've made in comparison to their expected double plays. The question again is how important are these skills relative to other skills.

 

Second, no sabermatrician worth his salt would recommend using stats entirely without the benefit of the naked eye. You use all the tools available at your disposal to make a balanced judgement. The stats don't match up with what you've seen? Look for the biases, and vice versa.

 

The concept of winning with a smaller payroll is a good one, and the Marlins showed it could be done last year. Thing is, the Marlins won with pitching, timely hitting, speed, and being lucky as hell. In other words, all things that Moneyball doesn't account for.

 

Luck is something no system can account for, and Moneyball is no different. Of course, throwing $200 Million out there to field a baseball team doesn't account for luck either.

 

Timely hitting is very much a factor of luck, because "clutch" hitters one season are usually not the clutch hitters the next season. Speed? Speed is nice, but the Marlins stole two bases last year during the World Series. The Marlins have speed, but their success is more dependant on whether Castillo or Pierre reach base than what they do afterward.

 

The thing people forget about the Marlins and the Angels is that they were one year wonders. I compare a Moneyball-type team to a smart poker player. In a single hand, anyone can draw a straight flush and take the pot. But its a smart poker player who plays the odds, plays smart, and knows the game that wins more hands over time. Moneyball is a better system for winning long term than short term. Sometimes you need to gamble to win it all, but alot of small market teams can not afford to survive a few 70-92 seasons in order to grab the brass ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Marlins, keep in mind that Juan Pierre had a .378 OBP during the playoffs too which helped them get the speed necessary to score runs and win the ballgames. Jeff Conine also had a .437 OBP and Ivan Rodriguez had a .390 OBP. Jeff Conine also managed to hit .367, Rodriguez hit .313 and Pierre hit .301. Without Carl Pavano and Josh Beckett pitching lights out, they may not have even reached the World Series.

 

In the WS: Looking at the stats, it's amazing that the Marlins managed to win due to their piss poor hitting(not just OBP and SLG but BA as well). Juan Pierre was a stud with a .333/.481/.429 line and Jeff Conine had a .333/.417/.381 line. Brad Penny and Josh Beckett basically carried the Marlins on their back to a WS victory.

 

Anaheim in the 2001 playoffs also had three guys put up great OBP's. Scott Speizio had a .424 OBP, Troy Glaus had a .420 OBP(and .770 SLG) and Tim Salmon had a .382 OBP. Also didn't hurt that Darin Erstad hit .352 and Adam Kennedy hit .340.

 

In the WS: Speizio had a .400 OBP, Glaus had a .385/.467/.846 line, David Eckstein hit .310, Darin Erstad hit .300 and Tim Salmon had a .346/.452/.615 line. So the hitting was clearly there. Brendan Donnelly was also huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, most of the negative stuff I've heard is from ESPN announcers and all that.

 

I do agree that the Angels and Marlins were both 1 hit wonders, and that a Moneyball team like the A's was better (at least the A's won their division). But then this isn't the thread to go on an anti wildcard rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, most of the negative stuff I've heard is from ESPN announcers and all that.

 

Its odd. In the last year especially, there's been a backlash against the book, with announcers going out of their way to express that it simply does not work, and small ball is not only good, but its the superior strategy. Instead of educating their fanbase, these commentators seem fit to denounce new ideas as poppycock.

 

A lot of people think sabermetrics is simply about denouncing small ball. It is not. The purpose is to question conventional wisdom by asking the simple question, "Can this be proven?" Is there such a thing as clutch hitting? Team chemestry? Can it be measured? What does score runs? What predicts future performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe team chemistry has the least bearing on baseball out of all the Big Four. Football, basketball, hockey, you've gotta be able to work together and support each other out there. But in baseball, since the primary dynamic is the pitcher-batter matchup, you're really just doing your own thing out there, save for double plays and the like. Your relationship with the rest of your teammates isn't going to affect how you hit the ball, how you run the bases. At least it shouldn't.You wouldn't have somebody in baseball trying to get the spotlight on himself like you see in the NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small ball has more to do with the coach's startegy/philosophy in attacking the game then moneyball does.

 

The A's may never win a world system under the current system, but as far as other teams in their price range, I'd say the A's offer the most exciting and entertaining product out there today. Also they are trying dammit, it is not like they get to Game 5 of playoff series and "Moneyball" rears it's ugly head. I would attribute injuries, a couple of HORRIBLY BAD CALLS, and lack of a dominant closer as to why the A's lost their 1st round playoff series, not moneyball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team chemistry has a lot to do with baseball. It's a little tougher to explain than in other sports, but it is needed. An infield has to know where everyone is, be able to turn 2 skillfully. Outfielders have to know where the guy next to them likes to play, where the cutoff man is, etc.

 

I've been on little league teams that did those things well, and I've been on teams that didn't do those things well. When you do it right and everyone gets along, you have chemistry. Watch the Cardinals and then watch the Cubs, and you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about.

 

At any rate, I don't especially like either the slugging type ball or the small ball. In theory you need both to succeed: Fast guys at the top to get on and steal, the big guys drive them in, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been on little league teams that did those things well, and I've been on teams that didn't do those things well. When you do it right and everyone gets along, you have chemistry. Watch the Cardinals and then watch the Cubs, and you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Your comparing little league to the Majors? If you made it to the Majors you probably know how to do things right already.

 

Oh and as for getting along the '72-'74 A's say "hi".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Team chemistry has a lot to do with baseball. It's a little tougher to explain than in other sports, but it is needed. An infield has to know where everyone is, be able to turn 2 skillfully. Outfielders have to know where the guy next to them likes to play, where the cutoff man is, etc.

 

I'd say that has more to do with knowing fundamentals than knowing team chemestry. Team chemestry, as commonly known, refers to the idea that players play at their best in a harmonious environment, which is best created by having the right players, a mix of an outspoken leader, good clubhouse guys, and whoever the media latches onto this week. It's a highly suspect area, because good "team chemestry" is commonly associated with a winning team, leading to the old chicken or the egg argument. When's the last time you read of a losing team with great team chemestry?

 

At any rate, I don't especially like either the slugging type ball or the small ball. In theory you need both to succeed: Fast guys at the top to get on and steal, the big guys drive them in, etc.

 

OBP, by far, is the most important skill for the top of the order. Much moreso than speed. If you have doubts, here is an example. In 1929, the Philadelphia Athletics won the World Series. Al Simmons drove in 157 runs, and Jimmie Foxx drove in 118 runs. Now in order to drive in those runs, you need guys on base. Their #2 hitter, Max Bishop, hit .232 and stole 1 base. He scored 102 runs. How did he do it? He drew 128 walks, posting a .398 OBP. Every year, the A's big hitters drove in massive amounts of runs, and Max Bishop scored obscene numbers of runs, all thanks to OBP. This is an extreme example, but it shows the concept behind Moneyball. Baserunners equal more runs and less outs. Speed is a nice bonus, but it is just that, a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy steals 50 bases(out of 70 chances) means that the guy who ran cost his team 20 outs over the span of 162 games by getting thrown out by the catcher.

 

Each time he attempts a steal, he raises the chances of giving his opponent a free out. Couple that with the fact that it's rare for players to steal 40+ bases with a better then 80% success rate and it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

 

To me, it's the same as a strikeout when a runner gets thrown out at second base. Instead of having a runner on 1st with 0 outs, you now have likely your #2/#3 up with nobody on and 1 out which lowers the odds of scoring a run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Team chemistry has a lot to do with baseball. It's a little tougher to explain than in other sports, but it is needed. An infield has to know where everyone is, be able to turn 2 skillfully. Outfielders have to know where the guy next to them likes to play, where the cutoff man is, etc.

 

I'd say that has more to do with knowing fundamentals than knowing team chemestry. Team chemestry, as commonly known, refers to the idea that players play at their best in a harmonious environment, which is best created by having the right players, a mix of an outspoken leader, good clubhouse guys, and whoever the media latches onto this week. It's a highly suspect area, because good "team chemestry" is commonly associated with a winning team, leading to the old chicken or the egg argument. When's the last time you read of a losing team with great team chemestry?

 

Maybe a younger team with a losing record with a promising future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne
Scott Speizio had a .424 OBP

 

WTF??? Scott Spiezio did THAT?

 

(2004: Scott Spiezio .207-.282 OBP, 9 HR 34 RBI)

 

Excuse me.......................

 

SPIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn you! Damn you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A guy steals 50 bases(out of 70 chances) means that the guy who ran cost his team 20 outs over the span of 162 games by getting thrown out by the catcher.

 

Each time he attempts a steal, he raises the chances of giving his opponent a free out. Couple that with the fact that it's rare for players to steal 40+ bases with a better then 80% success rate and it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

 

To me, it's the same as a strikeout when a runner gets thrown out at second base. Instead of having a runner on 1st with 0 outs, you now have likely your #2/#3 up with nobody on and 1 out which lowers the odds of scoring a run.

But what if that speedy runner is able to advance to third on a single, where a player with average speed would hold at second? Wouldn't that be a benefit?

 

I'm witnessing firsthand with the Giants this year, that station-to-station ball can cost runs as just as smallball can in certain situations.

 

You also have to take into account the double-play ball.

 

But "Moneyball" seems to be effective. The A's win every year, I hate it, but there's no denying it. It's not very exciting to me, but it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying a speedy runner in itsself is bad but more that the amount of steals a speedy runner seemingly "demands" from managers is more harmful for the most part then it is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying a speedy runner in itsself is bad but more that the amount of steals a speedy runner seemingly "demands" from managers is more harmful for the most part then it is helpful.

Dave Roberts needs more at-bats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying a speedy runner in itsself is bad but more that the amount of steals a speedy runner seemingly "demands" from managers is more harmful for the most part then it is helpful.

Dave Roberts needs more at-bats.

Terry Francona is oblivious to the word "consistent" in terms of his lineups. I think there's only been one or two times the whole season where he had the same lineup set as the game before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne
That's what happens with sample sizes. In 50 at bats, just about anything can happen. Spiezio got hot at just the right time.

Jeff Cirillo hit around .300 in May 2003, and the rest..............

 

........wrote his ticket back to the National League :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×