PDA

View Full Version : Paging FOBBs: "Moneyball" is being made into a movie


DumpJerry
10-18-2008, 04:51 PM
Starring (http://www.cinematical.com/2008/10/17/brad-pitt-takes-on-moneyball-too/) Brad Pitt.

turners56
10-18-2008, 04:59 PM
They're making THAT into a movie? I'm surprised they got Brad Pitt to do it.

doublem23
10-18-2008, 05:02 PM
:rolling:

I wonder if they have a camera with a wide enough angle to get all of Billy Beane's trophies in one shot, or if they'll just do a panorama.

turners56
10-18-2008, 05:06 PM
:rolling:

I wonder if they have a camera with a wide enough angle to get all of Billy Beane's trophies in one shot, or if they'll just do a panorama.

The book went into some depth with Swisher and Blanton. But if I remember correctly, most of it was about Andrew Brown, who retired from baseball...

I didn't really like the book very much.

Juiced and Game of Shadows were much more intriguing for obvious reasons.

munchman33
10-18-2008, 05:18 PM
They're making a movie about a team that, against all odds, gets swept out of the first round? :scratch:

I don't get it. This is more documentary territory.

thomas35forever
10-18-2008, 05:27 PM
Great idea. I can't wait to see how Moneyball brought a World Series championship to the city of Oakland. Oh wait...

chisoxmike
10-18-2008, 05:28 PM
Really lame.

RKMeibalane
10-18-2008, 05:49 PM
Is the movie being directed by jeremyb1? :cool:

BleacherBandit
10-18-2008, 06:02 PM
They should get Swish to act in it. That would be hilarious!

Lukin13
10-18-2008, 07:12 PM
I loved the book. I really enjoy any "outside the box thinking" in baseball.

My main problem with the "Moneyball approach": Defense!

Power hitters with patience generally are old, slow and piss-poor defenders.

munchman33
10-18-2008, 07:45 PM
They should get Swish to act in it. That would be hilarious!

Too bad they couldn't film during the 2008 season...

BleacherBandit
10-18-2008, 08:16 PM
Too bad they couldn't film during the 2008 season...

His acting quality would be about the same as his play this season.

turners56
10-18-2008, 08:19 PM
Too bad they couldn't film during the 2008 season...

Too bad most of the players mentioned in that book aren't even on the A's anymore.

But yeah, Swish would do a nice job...xD.

Eddo144
10-18-2008, 08:44 PM
I loved the book. I really enjoy any "outside the box thinking" in baseball.

My main problem with the "Moneyball approach": Defense!

Power hitters with patience generally are old, slow and piss-poor defenders.
Actually, the "Moneyball" approach is to find what the market undervalues. At the time the book was written, high-OBP guys were undervalued. Later, the A's started looking to defense, as that became undervalued.

DSpivack
10-18-2008, 08:53 PM
His acting quality would be about the same as his play this season.

How do you know he can't act? :?:

BleacherBandit
10-18-2008, 09:13 PM
How do you know he can't act? :?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS9OOPnQQTw :smile:

DSpivack
10-18-2008, 09:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS9OOPnQQTw :smile:

Thunderbolt? :rolling:

BleacherBandit
10-18-2008, 09:29 PM
Thunderbolt? :rolling:

Don't want to get into a stupid argument. Nick Swisher is a baseball player, not an actor.

However, he does sometimes seem enthusiastic like a theater kid....

DSpivack
10-18-2008, 09:40 PM
Don't want to get into a stupid argument. Nick Swisher is a baseball player, not an actor.

However, he does sometimes seem enthusiastic like a theater kid....

It's hard not to like the guy, off the field.

Oh, and I meant that first post as a joke, anyway.

Lefty34
10-18-2008, 09:47 PM
:rolling:

I wonder if they have a camera with a wide enough angle to get all of Billy Beane's trophies in one shot, or if they'll just do a panorama.

Yeah, God forbid they illustrate the school of baseball thinking that you either refuse, or are incapable to comprehend. Stat hating is cool for those who don't at least understand the argument, or try to. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance and not even understanding the whole message of the book. I can't wait to see this movie.

DSpivack
10-18-2008, 10:20 PM
Yeah, God forbid they illustrate the school of baseball thinking that you either refuse, or are incapable to comprehend. Stat hating is cool for those who don't at least understand the argument, or try to. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance and not even understanding the whole message of the book. I can't wait to see this movie.

And what has Mr. Beane accomplished?

I have no problem with using statistics to study baseball, I find it an interesting, new and relatively different way to look at the game. What I have a problem with is that many into sabermetrics think it's inherently a superior way to look at the sport and that it is some modicum of knowledge that operates on a higher plane. It's not a matter of understanding.

Tragg
10-18-2008, 10:29 PM
Yeah, God forbid they illustrate the school of baseball thinking that you either refuse, or are incapable to comprehend. Stat hating is cool for those who don't at least understand the argument, or try to. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance and not even understanding the whole message of the book. I can't wait to see this movie.
It's not stats. Most baseball fans use stats and enjoy them.
It's the dogmatic attitude of a certain sect of analysts that consider their opinions (use of stats) as fact. When the facts/results don't fit their theories they routinely dismiss the results as anomalys, "luck", or "small sample size". And it's gotten so bad that if you question a specific sect of statistical analysts (like BP), then you are questioning the use of statistics.
And if you refuse to engage in Beane adoration....well then, you're in the abacus generation.

BleacherBandit
10-18-2008, 10:31 PM
And what has Mr. Beane accomplished?

I have no problem with using statistics to study baseball, I find it an interesting, new and relatively different way to look at the game. What I have a problem with is that many into sabermetrics think it's inherently a superior way to look at the sport and that it is some modicum of knowledge that operates on a higher plane. It's not a matter of understanding.

I hate the whole concept of studying "Sabermetrics". Come on, this is Baseball, not a physiological study or something. We don't need to obsess ourselves with knowing every detail of a player's mathematical worth. If anything, these numbers should be an adjunct to the study of a player's worth.

Any defense of Beane's use of Sabermetrics is frivilous IMHO. This stems from the fact that the only legitimate way to evaluate whether success has been achieved is whether a title has been achieved. So Beane hasn't had success, no matter how smart he is or how much progress you think he has achieved.

MISoxfan
10-18-2008, 10:43 PM
Most people only bring up the number of titles Beane has as a joke, its not a very good argument.

What if the A's win the World Series next year, would he suddenly have been right all along?

Lefty34
10-18-2008, 10:51 PM
Most people only bring up the number of titles Beane has as a joke, its not a very good argument.

What if the A's win the World Series next year, would he suddenly have been right all along?


No, because stats suck and we're right. We value things like grit and hustle and badness (what?) and won't hear differently. If anyone does it with numbers, we don't want to hear about it because it isn't real: you can't touch it, taste it, be gritty with it. We want to ignore the idea that the book was about winning a division with an all-but absent payroll, not winning the world series. Bah, humbug.

P.S. I don't care if this is hyperbole that offends your senses. I'm drunk, the Rays are losing, and the Illini only seem to turn it on against teams that suck...so deal with it.

DSpivack
10-18-2008, 10:53 PM
It's not stats. Most baseball fans use stats and enjoy them.
It's the dogmatic attitude of a certain sect of analysts that consider their opinions (use of stats) as fact. When the facts/results don't fit their theories they routinely dismiss the results as anomalys, "luck", or "small sample size". And it's gotten so bad that if you question a specific sect of statistical analysts (like BP), then you are questioning the use of statistics.
And if you refuse to engage in Beane adoration....well then, you're in the abacus generation.

I hate the whole concept of studying "Sabermetrics". Come on, this is Baseball, not a physiological study or something. We don't need to obsess ourselves with knowing every detail of a player's mathematical worth. If anything, these numbers should be an adjunct to the study of a player's worth.

Any defense of Beane's use of Sabermetrics is frivilous IMHO. This stems from the fact that the only legitimate way to evaluate whether success has been achieved is whether a title has been achieved. So Beane hasn't had success, no matter how smart he is or how much progress you think he has achieved.

It's not the numbers I dislike [although I have no interest in the particularly esoteric ones, such as BABIP or some such silliness], but the people using them. Tragg said it well.

MISoxfan
10-18-2008, 11:04 PM
I actually like BABIP as long as the player has been around for awhile. Its nearly useless for first and second year players.

The stat I hate is VORP. I don't really have a problem rating players against the others who play their position and using that to help build a team. I just hate that people try to use it for MVP discussion. I don't care if you're playing second base your homerun is not more valuable than a first basemens.

Lefty34
10-18-2008, 11:25 PM
I actually like BABIP as long as the player has been around for awhile. Its nearly useless for first and second year players.

The stat I hate is VORP. I don't really have a problem rating players against the others who play their position and using that to help build a team. I just hate that people try to use it for MVP discussion. I don't care if you're playing second base your homerun is not more valuable than a first basemens.

How can you say that? Nobody really knows the formula for VORP, so you don't really know how or where or why HR's are valued.

But that, in and of itself, is a reason i don't like VORP: the secrecy behind it. I think that if the formula was released and people were allowed to review it I really hope it would be given much more credit.

MISoxfan
10-19-2008, 12:55 AM
Thats true, but I bet its a safe bet that it involves hitting and it also takes position into account otherwise there is no way Pedroia is second in the league.

doublem23
10-19-2008, 01:03 AM
Yeah, God forbid they illustrate the school of baseball thinking that you either refuse, or are incapable to comprehend. Stat hating is cool for those who don't at least understand the argument, or try to. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance and not even understanding the whole message of the book. I can't wait to see this movie.

Obviously since I don't slob all over the great, unrivaled Billy Beane, I don't understand baseball statistics.

I see the connection. :thumbsup:

Eddo144
10-19-2008, 09:40 AM
I don't care if you're playing second base your homerun is not more valuable than a first basemens.
I go back and forth on this one.

On the one hand, you're right. In a given game, a HR is a HR no matter who hit it.

On the other hand, "value" is dependent on position. Here was the best argument I've heard in favor of using position to evaluate the MVP.

For the 2008 Twins, Morneau and Mauer put up very similar raw value numbers (different types of numbers, but overall Mauer's pure hitting and on-base ability equals Morneau's slugging ability). However, it's much easier to find a first baseman that will produce good numbers than it is to find a similar catcher.

Therefore:
Mauer + any available first baseman > Morneau + any available catcher.

(Source: http://www.aarongleeman.com/2008_10_12_baseballblog_archive.html#6767479071599 454613

Also from the link, for those who love to tout Morneau's RBI totals: "Morneau came to the plate with an astounding 558 runners on base this season. Not only did that lead MLB by 37 and lead the AL by 74, it was the highest number of runners on base that any hitter has had since 1996...Morneau drove in 18.9 percent of the runners that were on base for him, which is a great rate. However, Mauer drove in 18.7 percent of the runners that were on base for him.")

downstairs
10-19-2008, 10:11 AM
How can you say that? Nobody really knows the formula for VORP, so you don't really know how or where or why HR's are valued.

But that, in and of itself, is a reason i don't like VORP: the secrecy behind it. I think that if the formula was released and people were allowed to review it I really hope it would be given much more credit.

Say what? Its completely known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player

I think you're referring to the goofy stat that determines what free agents are worth in terms of draft picks if they leave. No one believes that stat is worth anything.

Brian26
10-19-2008, 11:00 AM
And what has Mr. Beane accomplished?


I guess the movie doesn't have to have a happy ending.

I enjoyed the book without having any inherent love for Beane or the A's philosophy of baseball. Any new baseball movie has to be 100 times better than another Ben Stiller romantic comedy, so I'd actually be interested in seeing it.

Stoky44
10-19-2008, 11:09 AM
I guess the movie doesn't have to have a happy ending.

I enjoyed the book without having any inherent love for Beane or the A's philosophy of baseball. Any new baseball movie has to be 100 times better than another Ben Stiller romantic comedy, so I'd actually be interested in seeing it.

I bet this movie ends withthe A's making or winning the world series. Its going to be an adaptation of the book. Just like Roy Hobbs struck out in his last at bat in the book, not hitting a game winning hr.

Ps This is why I have come to like the movies that do not fear ending the movie "unhappily" or winning the game. Sometimes it just makes a better story.

Tragg
10-19-2008, 11:34 AM
How can you say that? Nobody really knows the formula for VORP, so you don't really know how or where or why HR's are valued.

But that, in and of itself, is a reason i don't like VORP: the secrecy behind it. I think that if the formula was released and people were allowed to review it I really hope it would be given much more credit.
But it is a completely bogus way to pick a MVP.
It's value is relative to others at that the position. MVP is the best regardless of position.

MISoxfan
10-19-2008, 12:11 PM
I agree that when it comes time to look at your team you could say its easier to let morneau go than mauer without having a huge drop in production.

I still think that when it comes to decide who helped their team out the most in any given season it shouldn't matter what position they play except when evaluating defense. You're not playing your position when you're up to bat.

infohawk
10-19-2008, 01:34 PM
Are they going to show Billy "fleecing" KW?

FedEx227
10-19-2008, 06:27 PM
The book went into some depth with Swisher and Blanton. But if I remember correctly, most of it was about Andrew Brown, who retired from baseball...

I didn't really like the book very much.



Clearly, because they mainly talk about Swisher, Chad Bradford and Jeremy Brown. With very little about Blanton. It never went heavy into any one particular guy, it sorta varied, I'd say between Swisher/Bradford/Brown were about equal in page time, while the evolution of Beane and the evolution of stats in baseball took up the rest.

Say what? Its completely known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player

I think you're referring to the goofy stat that determines what free agents are worth in terms of draft picks if they leave. No one believes that stat is worth anything.

Not really. Where in there is the offensive VORP formula? All it says for batters is what goes in, not the variables, etc.

I look forward to the movie. Not sure why everyone has to A) call people a FOBB, yay lame ass name calling B) think that we who enjoy statistics and like Billy Beane's methods mean that we think he's the best GM in baseball history and everyone else sucks. They didn't even say that in the book, but that would require people to actually read it before they bash it.

The biggest haters of the book, and Billy Beane and "Let's call them FOBB" haven't even picked up the book. Which is even funnier.

Yes, it talks about Beane fleecing KW, because at the time of the books print Billy Koch was getting blown up in Chicago and Keith Foulke was putting together his best season. Now in 2005, with hindsight we see that neither ended up doing much and Neal Cotts was a nice piece of us. But still let's overreact and make fun of it even though we didn't read it. YAY!

turners56
10-19-2008, 06:54 PM
Clearly, because they mainly talk about Swisher, Chad Bradford and Jeremy Brown. With very little about Blanton. It never went heavy into any one particular guy, it sorta varied, I'd say between Swisher/Bradford/Brown were about equal in page time, while the evolution of Beane and the evolution of stats in baseball took up the rest.



Not really. Where in there is the offensive VORP formula? All it says for batters is what goes in, not the variables, etc.

I look forward to the movie. Not sure why everyone has to A) call people a FOBB, yay lame ass name calling B) think that we who enjoy statistics and like Billy Beane's methods mean that we think he's the best GM in baseball history and everyone else sucks. They didn't even say that in the book, but that would require people to actually read it before they bash it.

The biggest haters of the book, and Billy Beane and "Let's call them FOBB" haven't even picked up the book. Which is even funnier.

Yes, it talks about Beane fleecing KW, because at the time of the books print Billy Koch was getting blown up in Chicago and Keith Foulke was putting together his best season. Now in 2005, with hindsight we see that neither ended up doing much and Neal Cotts was a nice piece of us. But still let's overreact and make fun of it even though we didn't read it. YAY!

I got my Browns mixed up. Lol.

Konerko05
10-19-2008, 06:56 PM
Clearly, because they mainly talk about Swisher, Chad Bradford and Jeremy Brown. With very little about Blanton. It never went heavy into any one particular guy, it sorta varied, I'd say between Swisher/Bradford/Brown were about equal in page time, while the evolution of Beane and the evolution of stats in baseball took up the rest.



Not really. Where in there is the offensive VORP formula? All it says for batters is what goes in, not the variables, etc.

I look forward to the movie. Not sure why everyone has to A) call people a FOBB, yay lame ass name calling B) think that we who enjoy statistics and like Billy Beane's methods mean that we think he's the best GM in baseball history and everyone else sucks. They didn't even say that in the book, but that would require people to actually read it before they bash it.

The biggest haters of the book, and Billy Beane and "Let's call them FOBB" haven't even picked up the book. Which is even funnier.

Yes, it talks about Beane fleecing KW, because at the time of the books print Billy Koch was getting blown up in Chicago and Keith Foulke was putting together his best season. Now in 2005, with hindsight we see that neither ended up doing much and Neal Cotts was a nice piece of us. But still let's overreact and make fun of it even though we didn't read it. YAY!


I agree with the premise of this post, but I'd say 1999 was Foulke's best season. Yeah, I'm bored and nitpicking.

FedEx227
10-19-2008, 07:47 PM
I got my Browns mixed up. Lol.

Yeah, who was Andrew Brown? The name sounds familiar.

But yeah Jeremy Brown was the stupid pick he made for a fat Alabama catcher that nobody even had on their board that he decided merited a first round pick, despite the fact he could've gotten him in the 2-35th rounds because nobody even wanted him.

DSpivack
10-19-2008, 08:14 PM
Yeah, who was Andrew Brown? The name sounds familiar.

But yeah Jeremy Brown was the stupid pick he made for a fat Alabama catcher that nobody even had on their board that he decided merited a first round pick, despite the fact he could've gotten him in the 2-35th rounds because nobody even wanted him.

A's reliever.

turners56
10-19-2008, 08:24 PM
Yeah, who was Andrew Brown? The name sounds familiar.

But yeah Jeremy Brown was the stupid pick he made for a fat Alabama catcher that nobody even had on their board that he decided merited a first round pick, despite the fact he could've gotten him in the 2-35th rounds because nobody even wanted him.

I don't get that at all. If anything, it was a really dumb decision. I mean, if nobody else wanted him, why in the world would you take him first when you could of had him 15 rounds later?

Lefty34
10-19-2008, 09:06 PM
I don't get that at all. If anything, it was a really dumb decision. I mean, if nobody else wanted him, why in the world would you take him first when you could of had him 15 rounds later?

It could have been for any number of reasons.

I think it might have been Beane trying to show off his prowess by making a pick that other people would laugh at him for and have the kid turn out to be a star.

Or maybe he wanted to be sure that he got him then and there, so nobody would get wind of what he saw in Brown and pick him up. I remember in the book it is talked about how Beane has had other GM's pick up on his player assessment and make similar moves. Either of those makes sense to me.

Jerome
10-19-2008, 10:38 PM
I suggested this in a project in my high school film studies class. I'm interested to see how much of the book they put in the movie.

I had Matt Dillon for Paul DiPodesta, the two look very similar

Jerome
10-19-2008, 10:45 PM
we think he's the best GM in baseball history and everyone else sucks. They didn't even say that in the book, but that would require people to actually read it before they bash it.

I thought some guy in the book was quoted as saying something along the lines of "Billy's head and shoulders above everybody else in the game" - it may have just been another A's scout or something though

chaerulez
10-19-2008, 10:58 PM
For a lot of bashing Moneyball gets on these forums, I doubt most of these people have actually read the book from start to finish. It's a pretty good book. It's intention was to make Billy Beane seem like the greatest GM on the face of the earth. Infact there is a sort of epilogue section at the end where the author, Michael Lewis, states that Beane and the A's were tolerant of Lewis doing his book but really weren't all that enamored with it. And it also states that when Beane got an advance copy of the book he said something to the effect that he comes off as a maniac.

With that said the book is really about two things. First is the rise of stats in baseball. There is an entire chapter about Bill James and his influence on baseball. Regardless of your opinion of stats, Bill James has done a lot in how we look at the game today. The main point of the book is how a market can undervalue something and how the A's a small market team with a small market budget and how they used that to compete in MLB. The epilogue section I mentioned earlier also talks about how the author received a letter from an owner of a hot dog cart business who used the moneyball economic principle of a market undervalue in his business. The book is not about how VORP is great or EqA or WARP should be used in every evaluation of a baseball player.

Read the book before you judge, Lewis is a good author, sometime how the line I plan to read his other sports related book, The Blind Side I hear it's good as well.

spiffie
10-20-2008, 02:56 PM
I read "Moneyball." It sucked, just like Billy Beane sucks, just like Baseball Prospectus sucks, and just like propellerheads suck. Tell me how a guy hit, when he hit, how a guy pitched, and if he won. Everything else is just an excuse to play with Excel when you could be watching or playing baseball.

Also, I returned "Moneyball" for a refund after reading. I still felt cheated afterwards though.

Lip Man 1
10-20-2008, 04:04 PM
I read the book completely and found it fascinating. However, I do not agree with the principles that Beane champions and history has shown that ultimately he has failed in the most important regard...winning a World Series (let alone even getting to one...)

Lip

Eddo144
10-20-2008, 04:33 PM
I read the book completely and found it fascinating. However, I do not agree with the principles that Beane champions and history has shown that ultimately he has failed in the most important regard...winning a World Series (let alone even getting to one...)

Lip
Which principles, out of curiosity?

The Red Sox employ sabermetrics quite a bit and have won two World Series in the past five seasons.

Now, as evidenced in the Ellis signing, the A's are focusing on defense, as it's undervalued (for a great take on the Ellis contract, see this fangraphs post (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-great-bargain-of-2009)).

jabrch
10-20-2008, 04:49 PM
What will be interesting about it is what lense the movie is told through...

Two choices in my eyes - The view Lewis wrote from in 2003 when "how to win an unfair game" made sense (even though it was sillyness), because they actually were winning, and the majority of the credit was being given to their talented young GM who got great players in there...

or

an historically accurate view that steroids made the Oakland As and that all of what Beane was able to do was trickle down from the Steroid Era and that the reality is that he wasn't able to find anything that was undervalued because his subsequent efforts to find the next undervalued things have found him complete crap - and now he was forced to completely rebuild from scratch - and that he is now claiming that quantity of pitching prospects is undervalued...so that's why he's giving up young players who have performed...

Beane has broken down the Big 3s (Z/M/H and C/G/T) in trade several times and has very little left to show for them. Take steroids out of the picture, and he probably doesn't even have any division titles to show for it. He still has Chavez - who is nearly worthless. He's got a farm full of questionmarks - same as many MLB franchises....he's got crap like Crosby around - who is of very little value. He's made many attempts at acquiring MLB FA - and had very little success. His talent evaluation included calling Fielder too fat for him, BJ Upton a "bad pick", Kasmir "Foolish due to how hard it is to project a HS pitcher", he compares Chavez to Bonds and A-Rod, etc...

Yes, Ben Fritz and Jeremy Brown and Steven Oberchain were valued highly by Beane - moreso than any other GM - ya know why? THEY SUCKED. Same with Colamarino, Stavisky and Kieger. so too with McCurdy, Stanley and Baker. The legendary Moneyball draft, where Beane was able to find what was undervalued, netted him Swisher, Blanton and Teahen - all of whom are gone now.

Billy Beane, with the help of Michael Lewis, is overhyped. He lacks skills needed to be a successful GM. Specifically, he has failed to evaluate MLB talent nearly every time it was required of him. And dumping stars for prospects, given the high failure rate of prospects, eventually becomes a self-defeating approach.

The book was a fun read. It was cute. It spun off millions of people who now call themselves statistics people who don't understand even the basics behind statistics. Baseball people have eaten up those who have tried to enter their arena with this approach. Riccardi has been fairly unsuccessful in Toronto. DePodesta was a train wreck in LA. Beane did himself well, and built himself set for life - but he has steroids and a very good writer to thank for it, not some amazaing ability to find what is undervalued...unless steroids and media coverage are undervalued.

spiffie
10-20-2008, 04:53 PM
If Beane has steroids to thank for his success would it be unreasonable to consider that Swisher's below average year could be due to leaving the steroid-friendly Oakland culture?

jabrch
10-20-2008, 04:58 PM
For a lot of bashing Moneyball gets on these forums, I doubt most of these people have actually read the book from start to finish.

I highly doubt many people here, all baseball fans, would either claim to have read it, and not done so, or would have started it and not finished. It's an easy read...

It's a pretty good book. It's intention was to make Billy Beane seem like the greatest GM on the face of the earth.

I agree it is a good book - but don't agree that Lewis' intention was that.

Infact there is a sort of epilogue section at the end where the author, Michael Lewis, states that Beane and the A's were tolerant of Lewis doing his book but really weren't all that enamored with it.

The same has been said by NFL franchises allowing HBO to cover their camps. I can understand why having media and cameras and microphones all over would be annoying.

And it also states that when Beane got an advance copy of the book he said something to the effect that he comes off as a maniac.

There's a reason for this - it is called truth.

With that said the book is really about two things. First is the rise of stats in baseball. There is an entire chapter about Bill James and his influence on baseball. Regardless of your opinion of stats, Bill James has done a lot in how we look at the game today. The main point of the book is how a market can undervalue something and how the A's a small market team with a small market budget and how they used that to compete in MLB.

Agreed that those are the key two points. I just disagree with the truthiness of the second. The As competed in a small market by having their roster stacked with people who were cheating. It includes the Big 6, but also includes guys like Canseco, McGwire, Jaha, etc. It includes pitchers who's names we won't ever hear. It includes role players as well. It also includes all of the fruit that came from those trees, in trades and as compensation picks. Beane failed to find anything significant that was undervalued. And at the same time, he failed to put enough value on those things actually more important to winning. We all know that baseball teams have looked at OBP long before Beane. Nobody here (I don't believe) would say otherwise.

Read the book before you judge

Your judgement that people haven't read the book is probably more wrong than right. Just my opinion.

I'd much rather read the book about how the Twins have competed consistently. (fundamentals and development) Or about how the Rays have done it (sucking long and hard). Or how the Marlins have done it. (boom and bust). The story about Oakland, when told completely, needs to be riddled with steroids. That's what Lewis and Beane and their fans always fail to tell us.

Eddo144
10-20-2008, 05:40 PM
The story about Oakland, when told completely, needs to be riddled with steroids. That's what Lewis and Beane and their fans always fail to tell us.
The story of Oakland, yes, especially when LaRussa was manager. But under Beane, not so much.

Beane became GM in 1997. McGwire was traded in the middle of the 1997 season (could it be that Beane was jettisoning the biggest steroid user?). Canseco hadn't been on the A's since 1992. John Jaha (clearly a driving force behind all the A's success) had only one productive year in Oakland (1999).

Look, I can't stand Billy Beane either. He's rather arrogant for my tastes. But he's built a team that can contend despite ownership that is willing to pay nobody to stay. He has to trade for prospects or let his good players walk.

His biggest flaw is that he treats it too much like a business in recent years. A baseball season doesn't pick up where the previous one left off, unfortunately for Beane.

The A's story is interesting, in that Beane's methods were contrary to the way nearly every other front office operated at the time. The Twins is a standard "we believe in scouting" story (plus, much of their success comes from (a) having the first overall pick to draft the best young catcher in decades and (b) fleecing the Giants out of three top prospects for an aging, average catcher; in fact, they also do what the A's do: get rid of expensive talent for prospects (Santana)). The Rays story is pretty interesting, as, contrary to popular belief, they don't have a team of first round picks, but rather a team of talent acquired through trades of former high picks.

FedEx227
10-20-2008, 05:42 PM
Well Giambi and Tejada were pretty big cases though.

Lefty34
10-20-2008, 06:11 PM
Well Giambi and Tejada were pretty big cases though.

Right, but does that mean that Beane a) gave his players steroids to cover up his supposed inability to evaluate talent or b) knew they were roiding and looked away, all the while calling it "finding undervalued players"?. No, it doesn't mean that.

HomeFish
10-20-2008, 08:38 PM
How do you work moneyball into a movie plot? What is the dramatic ending? Swisher taking a clutch walk?

whitesox901
10-20-2008, 11:28 PM
Always wanted to read the book, looks like now I dont have too :D:

jabrch
10-21-2008, 12:06 AM
The story of Oakland, yes, especially when LaRussa was manager. But under Beane, not so much.

If you believe that - I have a bridge to sell you.

Eddo144
10-21-2008, 08:04 AM
If you believe that - I have a bridge to sell you.
You're right, I left out Giambi and Tejada, but neither of them has been on the A's since 2003. You specifically brought up Canseco, who was never on the A's under Beane, McGwire, who was traded midway through Beane's first year as GM, and, for some bizarre reason, Jaha, who only had one productive year for the A's.

We get it; you hate the A's and Beane. But you would be just as quick to point out the flaws with the statement that the story of the White Sox under Kenny Williams should include their reliance on criminals such as Albert Belle and Wil Cordero.

Craig Grebeck
10-21-2008, 08:12 AM
You're right Jabrch, all the Moneyball draft got the A's was Teahen, Swisher, and Blanton. Not a bad draft -- especially considering we took Ring ahead of Blanton and were rightly ridiculed.

hellview
10-21-2008, 08:19 AM
The A's story is interesting, in that Beane's methods were contrary to the way nearly every other front office operated at the time. The Twins is a standard "we believe in scouting" story (plus, much of their success comes from (a) having the first overall pick to draft the best young catcher in decades and (b) fleecing the Giants out of three top prospects for an aging, average catcher; in fact, they also do what the A's do: get rid of expensive talent for prospects (Santana)). The Rays story is pretty interesting, as, contrary to popular belief, they don't have a team of first round picks, but rather a team of talent acquired through trades of former high picks.

Not really, Delmon Young is the only top pick that was moved to bring in talent that's currently on their team.

Do you really believe that all the Twins success is really based off drafting Mauer and the AJ trade?

palehozenychicty
10-21-2008, 08:49 AM
The story of Oakland, yes, especially when LaRussa was manager. But under Beane, not so much.

Beane became GM in 1997. McGwire was traded in the middle of the 1997 season (could it be that Beane was jettisoning the biggest steroid user?). Canseco hadn't been on the A's since 1992. John Jaha (clearly a driving force behind all the A's success) had only one productive year in Oakland (1999).

Look, I can't stand Billy Beane either. He's rather arrogant for my tastes. But he's built a team that can contend despite ownership that is willing to pay nobody to stay. He has to trade for prospects or let his good players walk.

His biggest flaw is that he treats it too much like a business in recent years. A baseball season doesn't pick up where the previous one left off, unfortunately for Beane.

The A's story is interesting, in that Beane's methods were contrary to the way nearly every other front office operated at the time. The Twins is a standard "we believe in scouting" story (plus, much of their success comes from (a) having the first overall pick to draft the best young catcher in decades and (b) fleecing the Giants out of three top prospects for an aging, average catcher; in fact, they also do what the A's do: get rid of expensive talent for prospects (Santana)). The Rays story is pretty interesting, as, contrary to popular belief, they don't have a team of first round picks, but rather a team of talent acquired through trades of former high picks.

Thank you. With their rise, this is the biggest misconception, that they start only top draft picks when only four of them play on the roster right now. If all you had to do is suck, then why haven't KC, Baltimore, et al. risen to the level of the Rays? It's called quality management, and they finally got it in Friedman and Sternberg. They knew what they were doing, and made moves that turned out gold. That's it.

jabrch
10-21-2008, 09:44 AM
Thank you. With their rise, this is the biggest misconception, that they start only top draft picks when only four of them play on the roster right now. If all you had to do is suck, then why haven't KC, Baltimore, et al. risen to the level of the Rays? It's called quality management, and they finally got it in Friedman and Sternberg. They knew what they were doing, and made moves that turned out gold. That's it.

When you suck, you do get to pick at the top of EVERY round, not just the first round.

For real...you think that the Rays could have finished middle of the pack and done what they did because of this quality management team? Really?

Bull****.

doublem23
10-21-2008, 10:05 AM
When you suck, you do get to pick at the top of EVERY round, not just the first round.

For real...you think that the Rays could have finished middle of the pack and done what they did because of this quality management team? Really?

Bull****.

:rolleyes:

The Rays had the perfect storm of high draft picks and finally getting competent management. If all it took was high draft picks, the Pirates should have started a dynasty 5 years ago.

More than any other sport, management and player development is as important as the actual players, in baseball.

hellview
10-21-2008, 10:20 AM
When you suck, you do get to pick at the top of EVERY round, not just the first round.

For real...you think that the Rays could have finished middle of the pack and done what they did because of this quality management team? Really?

Bull****.

True, but Upton and Longoria were the only two players on their roster that was 1st round picks (I don't count Price cause he only threw 17 innings) And trading Young for Garza and Barlett were the only top picks that were moved for players on their roster.

So I can't say all the top picks were the reason they are where they are. They made smart trades, good waiver wire pickups and smart free agent signings.

Sox4ever77
10-21-2008, 12:27 PM
You're right Jabrch, all the Moneyball draft got the A's was Teahen, Swisher, and Blanton. Not a bad draft -- especially considering we took Ring ahead of Blanton and were rightly ridiculed.

You forget to mention that Swisher and Blanton were projected 1st rounders, so that's hardly revolutionizing the draft.

champagne030
10-21-2008, 12:55 PM
(for a great take on the Ellis contract, see this fangraphs post (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-great-bargain-of-2009)).

:mg: That was one of the worst pile of **** analysis that I've ever seen.

Mark Ellis really deserved $16M/year and is one of the biggest free agent bargains in history at $5.5M. :rolleyes:

Eddo144
10-21-2008, 01:16 PM
:mg: That was one of the worst pile of **** analysis that I've ever seen.

Mark Ellis really deserved $16M/year and is one of the biggest free agent bargains in history at $5.5M. :rolleyes:
First of all, nowhere does it say he deserved $16M per year. Basically, it's saying he's roughly the value of Aaron Roward, who go $12M per year, which is implied to be overpaid.

Orlando Hudson will get $12M per year from someone, and Ellis is easily more than half the value of Hudson.

champagne030
10-21-2008, 01:39 PM
First of all, nowhere does it say he deserved $16M per year. Basically, it's saying he's roughly the value of Aaron Roward, who go $12M per year, which is implied to be overpaid.

Orlando Hudson will get $12M per year from someone, and Ellis is easily more than half the value of Hudson.

It says he's worth 3 times what he signed for and that was $5.5M per year. My bad - I guess I should've stated $16.5M/year. Regardless, I really doubt Hudson gets $12, but that would just make Orlando a horrible signing. It still doesn't make Ellis one of the best free agent bargains in the history of baseball.

Eddo144
10-21-2008, 02:35 PM
It says he's worth 3 times what he signed for and that was $5.5M per year. My bad - I guess I should've stated $16.5M/year. Regardless, I really doubt Hudson gets $12, but that would just make Orlando a horrible signing. It still doesn't make Ellis one of the best free agent bargains in the history of baseball.
Sorry, I missed the 3x figure. I bet Hudson will get $12M/year. Rowand got that much.

Remember, the true value of a player is relative to what others are getting paid. If someone 1.25x as good as Ellis gets 2.5x as much per year, then his signing is a steal. Biggest steal in history? No, and that was hyperbole.

Since this has happened, I've read a few articles suggesting Ellis's shoulder injury is worse than the public and media are aware, and that both he and Beane are opportunists: Ellis for signing for a reasonable deal before wind gets out of further injury and Beane for anticipating his shoulder will heal just fine and signing him for less than he's worth.

spiffie
10-22-2008, 01:10 PM
I'd much rather read the book about how the Twins have competed consistently. (fundamentals and development) Or about how the Rays have done it (sucking long and hard). Or how the Marlins have done it. (boom and bust). The story about Oakland, when told completely, needs to be riddled with steroids. That's what Lewis and Beane and their fans always fail to tell us.
Is that why Swisher fell apart upon coming to Chicago?

Zisk77
10-22-2008, 02:38 PM
Most people only bring up the number of titles Beane has as a joke, its not a very good argument.

What if the A's win the World Series next year, would he suddenly have been right all along?


Without reading the rest of the thread there were 4 reasons the A's were succesful to some degree...Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Harden...and then these names changed and they got mileage out of Haren, Blanton, Etc. pitching is still the name of the game and they had it in spades.
However when runs were are hard to come by they had trouble manufacturing runs because their high on base % guys couldn't steal, bunt, hit and run, go first to third on a single or score from 1st on a double and they couldn't hit Hr's or walk against other elite Pitching staffs.

Oblong
10-23-2008, 08:53 AM
Was it yet mentioned in this thread that the picks before and after Swisher in 2002 were the Game 1 starters for the World Series?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?year_ID=2002&round=1&draft_type=junreg