PDA

View Full Version : Where are all the Beane/Lewis sycophants


Pages : [1] 2

jabrch
04-15-2004, 07:56 AM
Where is everyone in line to bless Billy Beane as the next king of the world for how he fleeced the Sox out of the Great Chad Bradford for Miguel Olivo? Where are all the Kenny Williams bashers?

Olivo is, in front of our eyes, developing into a complete player, both offensively and defensively. Raise your proverbial hand if you'd rather have Bradford on this club for today and the future than Olivo?

Railsplitter
04-15-2004, 07:58 AM
Chad who?

wdelaney72
04-15-2004, 08:02 AM
As far as I can tell, the score is 1-1. K-dub gets a score on the Olivo / Bradford trade.

Beane gets the nod on the Foulke / Koch deal. I wasn't the biggest fan of Keith Foulke, but I think Koch's performance over the last 2 seasons speaks for itself.

fquaye149
04-15-2004, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by wdelaney72
As far as I can tell, the score is 1-1. K-dub gets a score on the Olivo / Bradford trade.

Beane gets the nod on the Foulke / Koch deal. I wasn't the biggest fan of Keith Foulke, but I think Koch's performance over the last 2 seasons speaks for itself.



...neal cotts...the jury's still out

voodoochile
04-15-2004, 08:08 AM
KW did a good thing with Olivo for Bradford, but the A's didn't get fleeced. They traded from depth to fill a need. That's they way you are supposed to run a club.

anewman35
04-15-2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by fquaye149
...neal cotts...the jury's still out

Exactly. I'm not so sure history will show us losing in the Koch/Foulke trade (or at least not losing horribly) - basically, if Cotts can become a solid starting pitcher, we gave up a year of Foulke for a few good years of Cotts. Who knows, it might end up working out.

StepsInSC
04-15-2004, 08:25 AM
Bradford's been a stud for the A's, but Olivo is what we needed I guess. Kind of hard to claim a winner of that one.

Fungo
04-15-2004, 08:27 AM
Olivo is 7 for 17 this year, let's not go overboard. Not the world's biggest sample size to go on.

Dadawg_77
04-15-2004, 08:46 AM
If the Sox still had Bradford last year instead of Olivo, it would have given us a much greater chance to make the playoffs. If the Sox had Foulke and Bradford, we could have been defending World Series Champs.

Jjav829
04-15-2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
If the Sox still had Bradford last year instead of Olivo, it would have given us a much greater chance to make the playoffs. If the Sox had Foulke and Bradford, we could have been defending World Series Champs.

How would either of those guys changed the fact that we scored a combined 7 runs in perhaps the 3 most important games of the season against the Twins? Or the fact that we had trouble scoring against the Tigers in some games (including a sweep by the Tigers where we scored 3 runs in 3 games). Or the fact that we had an inept manager? Or the fact that the team consistently choked in big situations and gave away big games?

jabrch
04-15-2004, 09:10 AM
Why does everyone suddenly have such fond memories of Foulke? He was 2-4 with only 11 saves in 2002, right? He was a floppy armed closer who nobody liked then because he didn't "bring it". Sure - Koch isn't the answer, we all know that. But Foulke wasn't cutting it with us then either.

In any case, I just get tired of hearing the deification of the calculator-heads in baseball.

Dadawg_77
04-15-2004, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
How would either of those guys changed the fact that we scored a combined 7 runs in perhaps the 3 most important games of the season against the Twins? Or the fact that we had trouble scoring against the Tigers in some games (including a sweep by the Tigers where we scored 3 runs in 3 games). Or the fact that we had an inept manager? Or the fact that the team consistently choked in big situations and gave away big games?

Well Koch doesn't blow the games vs KC or Tampa. And they would help get wins in other games, so the games vs Det and Twins would be less meaningful.

Dadawg_77
04-15-2004, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Why does everyone suddenly have such fond memories of Foulke? He was 2-4 with only 11 saves in 2002, right? He was a floppy armed closer who nobody liked then because he didn't "bring it". Sure - Koch isn't the answer, we all know that. But Foulke wasn't cutting it with us then either.

In any case, I just get tired of hearing the deification of the calculator-heads in baseball.

I disagree. I always liked Foulke.

jabrch
04-15-2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I disagree. I always liked Foulke.

Nobody was an exaggeration, but he wasn't a beloved closer on the south side, by any stretch of the imagination.

MarqSox
04-15-2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Why does everyone suddenly have such fond memories of Foulke? He was 2-4 with only 11 saves in 2002, right? He was a floppy armed closer who nobody liked then because he didn't "bring it". Sure - Koch isn't the answer, we all know that. But Foulke wasn't cutting it with us then either.

Hmm. Aside from about two months in the 2002 season, I never heard a Sox fan say a bad word about Foulke. In fact, I worked for three years at the White Sox Clubhouse store at Oakbrook, and Foulke was second only to Magglio in terms of jersey sales. So, I'm not sure where you got the idea that he wasn't popular.

MRKARNO
04-15-2004, 09:37 AM
Now I agree with the sabermetric way of thinking in general, but Beane is wrong on this trade. He has already lost the trade IMO and he could look REAL bad this year, especially if Cotts turns out to be a solid 5th or 4th starter and Olivo shows flashes of being one of the few catchers with great speed, decent power and the ability to get on base at a respectable clip.

CubKilla
04-15-2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Where is everyone in line to bless Billy Beane as the next king of the world for how he fleeced the Sox out of the Great Chad Bradford for Miguel Olivo? Where are all the Kenny Williams bashers?

Foulke for Botch and Cotts

Durham for Adkins

K Wells, Fogg, and Lowe for Ritchie

D'angelo Jimenez

Royce K-layton

Sad fact is there are more reasons hate KW than there are reasons to jock him. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime and with baseball deals it is no different.

CubKilla
04-15-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Why does everyone suddenly have such fond memories of Foulke? He was 2-4 with only 11 saves in 2002, right?

Because JM failed to allow him to close again after the FIRST HALF of 2002. Foulke's ERA was under 1 in the second half and he was practically unhittable. KF earned his closers role back but JM refused to let him close again exclusively.

Fridaythe13thJason
04-15-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Foulke for Botch and Cotts

Durham for Adkins

K Wells, Fogg, and Lowe for Ritchie

D'angelo Jimenez

Royce K-layton

Sad fact is there are more reasons hate KW than there are reasons to jock him. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime and with baseball deals it is no different.

None of those bother me except Wells and Fogg. Other than that, they all made sense at the time.

CHISOXFAN13
04-15-2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Foulke for Botch and Cotts

Durham for Adkins

K Wells, Fogg, and Lowe for Ritchie

D'angelo Jimenez

Royce K-layton

Sad fact is there are more reasons hate KW than there are reasons to jock him. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime and with baseball deals it is no different.

How bout Marte, Colon, Everett, Sullivan, and to a lesser extent thus far, Uribe?

Man, that blind squirrel is finding a lot of nuts.

Randar68
04-15-2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
Bradford's been a stud for the A's, but Olivo is what we needed I guess. Kind of hard to claim a winner of that one.

Bradford is a middle freaking releiver. There is nobody in baseball in that role that can be called a "stud". Miguel Olivo is a 5-tool catcher. How many of those are there in baseball?

*****... Bradford's a "stud"???

CubKilla
04-15-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
How bout Marte, Colon, Everett, Sullivan, and to a lesser extent thus far, Uribe?

Man, that blind squirrel is finding a lot of nuts.

And what did Colon, Everett, and Sullivan get the Sox? ZIP! What about the youngster's we gave up? How will they pan out? We don't know. If the KW backers will use Cotts as a fallback when discussing the Foulke for Botch deal, then it's only fair that KW bashers use Honnel, Biddle and Co. before deeming anyone of the above deals complete successes for the White Sox.

As it stands right now, the only complete success I'm willing to concede KW is Marte for Guerrier. It's too early to deem the Sox the winner on the Olivo deal. The Sox gave up a closer on the 6 months and the Sox gave up alot on the 2 1/2 month rents for Colon and Everett. Let's not forget about the approximate 1 month we got out of Sullivan.

CHISOXFAN13
04-15-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
And what did Colon, Everett, and Sullivan get the Sox? ZIP! What about the youngster's we gave up? How will they pan out? We don't know. If the KW backers will use Cotts as a fallback when discussing the Foulke for Botch deal, then it's only fair that KW bashers use Honnel, Biddle and Co. before deeming anyone of the above deals complete successes for the White Sox.

As it stands right now, the only complete success I'm willing to concede KW is Marte for Guerrier. It's too early to deem the Sox the winner on the Olivo deal. The Sox gave up a closer on the 6 months and the Sox gave up alot on the 2 1/2 month rents for Colon and Everett. Let's not forget about the approximate 1 month we got out of Sullivan.

Maybe you should try blaming a player for not getting the job done. You going to tell me that we didn't have the most talent in the division? KW never strapped on the uniform but he certainly gave Manuel a team that could win.

Honel is still in the organization, too.

jabrch
04-15-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Foulke for Botch and Cotts

Durham for Adkins

K Wells, Fogg, and Lowe for Ritchie

D'angelo Jimenez

Royce K-layton

Sad fact is there are more reasons hate KW than there are reasons to jock him. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime and with baseball deals it is no different.

Foulke was terrible with us in 2002, losing his job. The GM did the best he felt he could. Cotts still looks good - and we might end up getting the better end of that deal.

Durham was gone anyhow - Adkins wasn't bad compensation for him.

The Ritchie deal was not universally disliked when it went down - hindsight is 20/20.

Jimenez has been dumped by multiple franchises for the same reasons. Baseball people in general don't like him. Should he change his attitude towards the game, his teammates, and work, then maybe he might develop, but both the Yanks and the Padres dumped him - I never hear their fans griping about it.

Clayton was flat out bad.

I think people reach to hard to dislike KW. He does the best he can given our budget and our situation.

jabrch
04-15-2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
And what did Colon, Everett, and Sullivan get the Sox? ZIP! What about the youngster's we gave up? How will they pan out? We don't know. If the KW backers will use Cotts as a fallback when discussing the Foulke for Botch deal, then it's only fair that KW bashers use Honnel, Biddle and Co. before deeming anyone of the above deals complete successes for the White Sox.



And this is Colon, Everett and Sullivan's fault? Geez.

CubKilla
04-15-2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Honel is still in the organization, too.

Then who am I thinking of? I know he was with the Reds last season. You're right. Just dawned on me that Honel is a P and the player I'm thinking of was playing the IF against the Cubs. I thought his name was Honnel though. My mistake.

CHISOXFAN13
04-15-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Then who am I thinking of? I know he was with the Reds last season. You're right. Just dawned on me that Honel is a P and the player I'm thinking of was playing the IF against the Cubs. I thought his name was Honnel though. My mistake.

AHH, Tim Hummel. No bigie. Easy to get those two confused.

CubKilla
04-15-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
AHH, Tim Hummel. No bigie. Easy to get those two confused.

That's the guy. Thanks for the correction.

MarkEdward
04-15-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Then who am I thinking of? I know he was with the Reds last season. You're right. Just dawned on me that Honel is a P and the player I'm thinking of was playing the IF against the Cubs. I thought his name was Honnel though. My mistake.

You're probably thinking of Tim Hummel.

By the way, when Kenny Williams wins three division titles and takes us to the playoffs for four consecutive seasons, then we can start comparing him with Billy Beane.

hold2dibber
04-15-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Foulke for Botch and Cotts

Lousy trade, no doubt about (unless Cotts becomes a legitimate above-average major league starter).

Durham for Adkins

Adkins ain't much, that's for sure. But there are a few things that people always seem to forget when discussing this trade: (1) it appeared at the time that the Sox would get no draft pick compensation when Durham left at the end of the year as a FA; (2) none of us know what else was being offered for Durham (persistent rumors suggest that no one other than the A's had any real interest; (3) the A's paid for Durham's salary for the remainder of that year, giving the Sox several million dollars of payroll relief that was likely critical to being able to acquire guys like Colon and Gordon the following off season.

K Wells, Fogg, and Lowe for Ritchie

An absolute, bona fide disaster. Horrible, horrible trade. Kip Wells is going to be a top of the rotation starter (barring injury) for the next 10 years. Ugh.

D'angelo Jimenez

Jimenez is incredibly talented and the Sox gave up nothing to get him. I don't see how you can possibly suggest that he wasn't worth a shot. In fact, I think you can make a much better argument that trading him away was KW's mistake, not acquiring him.

Royce K-layton

Clayton sucked, but the Sox gave up nothing for him.

Sad fact is there are more reasons hate KW than there are reasons to jock him. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime and with baseball deals it is no different.

No GM gets it right all of the time. You conveniently omit the Colon and Marte acquisitions. The fact that KW was able to get legitimate prospects for Lofton and Alomar Jr. in '02 and dealt Howry at exactly the right time. He put by far the most talented team in the AL Central on the field last year. He signed Gordon for dirt cheap. The drafts (according to those who know more than I about it) under his watch have been better than under Schu. All in all, I'd give him a C+. A little better than average.

MisterB
04-15-2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Clayton sucked, but the Sox gave up nothing for him.

Except $9M in salary that could have been used on other things...

jeremyb1
04-15-2004, 02:16 PM
Yeah. Bradford's not a stud because he doesn't pitch the 9th inning. That makes sense since teams never blow games in the 6-8th innings. How about Marte? He's never been a full time closer, is he worthless too as a middle reliever? I just don't know how some of you think you win baseball games. You only need one reliever your closer? Bradford could be our closer right now.

I love how the first post asks who you'd rather have from today forward. THE A'S HAVE HAD BRADFORD PERFORMING AT AMAZING LEVELS FOR THREE SEASONS!!! Bradford was good for three of four wins last season. If we'd had him we probably would've made the playoffs.

I love Miguel Olivo I think he was a good pickup by KW but that by no means cancels out the closemindedness and foolishness with which this organization dealt with Chad Bradford. Olivo may be a great catcher but so far he's accomplished very little so lets wait until he's a very good catcher for three or four seasons before people claim KW fleeced Beane by trading a player that's been one of the best reliever in baseball for three seasons.

Randar68
04-15-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Yeah. Bradford's not a stud because he doesn't pitch the 9th inning. That makes sense since teams never blow games in the 6-8th innings. How about Marte? He's never been a full time closer, is he worthless too as a middle reliever? I just don't know how some of you think you win baseball games. You only need one reliever your closer? Bradford could be our closer right now.

I love how the first post asks who you'd rather have from today forward. THE A'S HAVE HAD BRADFORD PERFORMING AT AMAZING LEVELS FOR THREE SEASONS!!! Bradford was good for three of four wins last season. If we'd had him we probably would've made the playoffs.

Bradford is a freaking middle reliever. *** are you whining about? AMAZING LEVELS? You mean like, a level below what Marte performed at last year? He's a righty middle reliever who is definitely very effective. Who are you yelling at about only valuing closers, nobody here said that. If we had Bradford last year we would have made the playoffs??? Lay down the crack pipe, Jeremy. We had Flash, Sullivan, Marte and Wunsch and the bullpen last year was one of the biggest strengths outside of Koch.

Seriously, your love-affair with Chad Bradford is completely non-sensical. Olivo is a 5-tool catcher who will be a 120-140 game player this year and down the road. There are only about a 5 players that fit that description in any given decade! You tell me what's more valuable. You can find a very effective righty reliever ANYWHERE. For an organization to give up a righty reliever out of a position of strength, and get a franchise-catcher in return is an absolute STEAL for anyone, anywhere. There are probably 40-50 right-handed relievers that could admirably replace/fill Bradford's role. Using statistics to guage the value or effectiveness of a player without regard to their role, is like trying to measure the quality of a diamond from 100 feet away. Effective middle relievers are a dime a dozen. All-around catchers are harder to find than quality starting pitchers.


Originally posted by jeremyb1
I love Miguel Olivo I think he was a good pickup by KW but that by no means cancels out the closemindedness and foolishness with which this organization dealt with Chad Bradford. Olivo may be a great catcher but so far he's accomplished very little so lets wait until he's a very good catcher for three or four seasons before people claim KW fleeced Beane by trading a player that's been one of the best reliever in baseball for three seasons.

I'm not saying KW fleeced him, as they both dealt from positions of strength. I'm saying it was an absolute STEAL from the perspective of the White Sox, and probably for the A's as well, but one is not exclusive from the other. Apparently, you can't recognize that. Sometimes in a trade, nobody wins, other times, both teams win, and most of the time, one team wins. However, when Miguel Olivo is a 2005 All Star, let's see what you say in terms of the White Sox end of the deal.

doublem23
04-15-2004, 03:52 PM
This thread has to set the record for most incredibly ridiculous posts... Chad Bradford a stud? Koch-Foulke not that bad a deal?

:threadsucks

34 Inch Stick
04-15-2004, 03:54 PM
2005? Why so pessimistic, 2004 my friend!!!!

rdivaldi
04-15-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
And what did Colon, Everett, and Sullivan get the Sox? ZIP! What about the youngster's we gave up?

We gave up basically nothing for those guys, Josh Rupe is probably the only one of consequence. The rest were extremely young or just trash.

doublem23
04-15-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
We gave up basically nothing for those guys, Josh Rupe is probably the only one of consequence. The rest were extremely young or just trash.

How high was Anthony Webster rated last year? Wasn't he like Top 5 in the organization?

rdivaldi
04-15-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
How high was Anthony Webster rated last year? Wasn't he like Top 5 in the organization?

He was top 10, but that was more indicative of how weak our farm system was at the time. Webster needs to perform above A ball before I start buying into his talent. Right now he's batting .136 for Texas' adv A ball team.

Randar68
04-15-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
This thread has to set the record for most incredibly ridiculous posts... Chad Bradford a stud? Koch-Foulke not that bad a deal?

:threadsucks


Amen.

jeremyb1
04-15-2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Bradford is a freaking middle reliever. *** are you whining about? AMAZING LEVELS? You mean like, a level below what Marte performed at last year? He's a righty middle reliever who is definitely very effective. Who are you yelling at about only valuing closers, nobody here said that. If we had Bradford last year we would have made the playoffs??? Lay down the crack pipe, Jeremy. We had Flash, Sullivan, Marte and Wunsch and the bullpen last year was one of the biggest strengths outside of Koch.

Seriously, your love-affair with Chad Bradford is completely non-sensical. Olivo is a 5-tool catcher who will be a 120-140 game player this year and down the road. There are only about a 5 players that fit that description in any given decade! You tell me what's more valuable. You can find a very effective righty reliever ANYWHERE. For an organization to give up a righty reliever out of a position of strength, and get a franchise-catcher in return is an absolute STEAL for anyone, anywhere. There are probably 40-50 right-handed relievers that could admirably replace/fill Bradford's role. Using statistics to guage the value or effectiveness of a player without regard to their role, is like trying to measure the quality of a diamond from 100 feet away. Effective middle relievers are a dime a dozen. All-around catchers are harder to find than quality starting pitchers.

I'm not saying KW fleeced him, as they both dealt from positions of strength. I'm saying it was an absolute STEAL from the perspective of the White Sox, and probably for the A's as well, but one is not exclusive from the other. Apparently, you can't recognize that. Sometimes in a trade, nobody wins, other times, both teams win, and most of the time, one team wins. However, when Miguel Olivo is a 2005 All Star, let's see what you say in terms of the White Sox end of the deal.

The comments about closers are related to the fact that people claim Bradford is not a great pitcher because he is a middle reliever (he's a setup man) ie, not a closer. Unless you're arguing that no bullpen pitcher can be a stud you're arguing only closers can be studs and that is a terrible argument especially in light of the way closer are used these days. The way our club and most clubs use closers is that they pitch the 9th inning with the game within three or four runs. Well, starters don't go 8 innings every game so pitching the 7th or 8th inning (when Bradford would pitch) in a close game is every bit as important as pitching the 9th inning. Hence a middle reliever can be ever bit as important as a closer and if the bullpen has any importance in winning games which I certainly think it does, any relief pitcher is capable of being a stud. Since by numerous methods of measurement Bradford is one of the best relievers in baseball, he's a stud.

You're correct that we did have good relievers in Marte, Wusnch, and Gordon last season. However, Wunsch only threw 36 innings, not exactly a huge contribution. Those aren't the only three pitchers that threw for us last season. If you replace the 47.2 innings of a 6.61 ERA thrown by Rick White and some of the 53 innings of a 5.77 ERA by Koch with the 77 innings of a 3.04 ERA by Bradford this team wins more games. I think that's unavoidable. Considering how close the race was I think that most likely puts us in the playoffs or at least keeps us in the race until the last day or two of the season.

I think its insane to say you can find a good right handed reliever anywhere. How's Taktsu looking right now? Its obviously not that easy. If so every team in baseball would have a great bullpen and every reliever would put up numbers like Bradford. It doesn't happen.

rdivaldi
04-15-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
If the KW backers will use Cotts as a fallback when discussing the Foulke for Botch deal, then it's only fair that KW bashers use Hummel...

Tim Hummel is currently burning up AAA at a .125 clip for Cincinnati. I don't think he will be missed...

Randar68
04-15-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I think its insane to say you can find a good right handed reliever anywhere. How's Taktsu looking right now? Its obviously not that easy. If so every team in baseball would have a great bullpen and every reliever would put up numbers like Bradford. It doesn't happen.

There are probably 30-50 Solid to very good RH relievers in baseball. How many catchers with Olivo's talents are there? 5 or 10 tops?

And don't even get me started if you think the middle-relief role is NEARLY as important as the set-up or closing role. The pressure and importance of that role far outweighs any middle-reliever's value.

nodiggity59
04-15-2004, 05:29 PM
The Sox are a better team with Miguel Olivo. Olivo will play around 120 games, whereas Bradford pitches 77 innings out of a 1,000+ inning season.

Dadawg_77
04-15-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
And don't even get me started if you think the middle-relief role is NEARLY as important as the set-up or closing role. The pressure and importance of that role far outweighs any middle-reliever's value.

Lets see how good Bradford was....

From BP: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/rrereport03.html

Final 2003 Reliever Evaluation Tools Report

by Michael Wolverton


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report rates relievers according to a variety of metrics, all of which are based on the notion of run expectation -- how many runs are expected to score given the bases/outs state when the reliever entered and/or left the game. The advantage of these metrics is that they do a reasonable job of handling two factors that are poorly handled by traditional statistics based on runs charged: how the reliever handles his inherited runners, and the support the reliever gets when he turns runners over to others. Overall reliever performance is measured by Adjusted Runs Prevented (ARP), a park-adjusted extension to a tool developed by Gary Skoog and Steve Schulman, which measures how run expectation changes between the time the reliever enters the game and the time he exits. The entire set of tools is described in an article, and you can see a detailed definition from the glossary of any stat used below by clicking on the column heading.

Pitcher Team IP R ARA APR IRP BRS RRA ARP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gagne,E LAD 82.3 12 1.43 30.5 2.4 -0.3 1.21 32.6
Cormier,R PHI 84.7 18 2.13 24.9 7.0 2.0 1.56 30.2
Wagner,B HOU 86.0 18 1.85 27.9 2.0 0.4 1.65 29.8
Donnelly,B ANA 74.0 14 1.77 24.7 5.9 2.4 1.43 27.5
Hasegawa,S SEA 73.0 12 1.47 26.8 3.9 2.9 1.44 27.0
Foulke,K OAK 86.7 21 2.12 25.5 4.2 1.9 2.02 26.5
Mota,G LAD 105.0 23 2.16 30.5 -3.3 3.8 2.78 23.2
Smoltz,J ATL 64.3 9 1.26 25.1 -1.1 0.3 1.59 22.7
Soriano,R SEA 53.0 9 1.51 19.2 2.3 -1.6 0.93 22.6
Riske,D CLE 74.7 21 2.55 18.5 3.0 -2.1 2.06 22.5
Hawkins,L MIN 77.3 20 2.27 21.5 4.0 0.1 2.17 22.3
Quantrill,P LAD 77.3 18 2.29 21.3 3.9 1.2 2.17 22.3
Marte,D CHW 79.7 17 1.89 25.5 -0.2 3.9 2.39 21.1
Dotel,O HOU 87.0 25 2.54 21.6 -0.4 1.1 2.76 19.4
Shields,S ANA 69.7 16 2.15 20.3 0.0 1.0 2.27 19.4
Mateo,J SEA 85.7 32 3.33 13.7 3.1 -2.4 2.75 19.3
Valverde,J ARI 50.3 16 2.57 12.3 6.4 -1.3 1.47 18.4
Rivera,M NYY 70.7 15 1.84 23.0 -3.3 0.4 2.47 18.1
Bradford,C OAK 77.0 28 3.18 13.6 7.7 3.8 2.75 17.3
Gordon,T CHW 74.0 28 3.35 11.7 6.5 0.6 2.67 17.3
Ayala,L MON 71.0 27 3.11 13.1 4.7 0.4 2.59 17.3
Mantei,M ARI 55.0 17 2.50 13.9 2.6 0.2 2.15 16.0
Fuentes,B COL 75.3 24 2.57 18.4 3.1 5.3 2.90 15.6
Leskanic,C M/K 52.7 15 2.42 13.8 1.7 0.2 2.11 15.6
Urbina,U T/F 77.0 25 2.66 18.1 -2.8 -0.3 2.98 15.4
Nathan,J SFG 79.0 26 3.15 14.2 -2.2 -3.1 3.02 15.3
Villarreal,O ARI 95.0 38 3.23 16.3 0.1 1.3 3.33 15.2
Borowski,J CHC 68.3 23 3.27 11.4 3.7 0.4 2.86 14.5
Shouse,B TEX 61.7 24 3.00 12.1 3.0 1.7 2.69 14.3
Weber,B ANA 80.3 26 3.04 15.5 1.3 1.8 3.19 14.1


CHICAGO WHITE SOX Park Effect: +0.3%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitcher G IP R ARA APR IRnr/G EIRs/G IRP BRS RRA ARP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adkins,J 4 9.3 5 4.74 0.0 0.50 0.23 -1.1 -0.2 4.72 0.1
Ginter,M 3 3.3 5 13.28 -3.1 0.33 0.21 -0.0 -0.7 11.47 -2.5
Glover,G 24 35.7 18 4.47 1.2 0.92 0.30 -3.9 -0.6 5.43 -2.6
Gordon,T 66 74.0 28 3.35 11.7 0.56 0.21 6.5 0.6 2.67 17.3
Koch,B 55 53.0 36 6.01 -7.3 0.31 0.11 0.5 1.9 6.23 -8.6
Marte,D 71 79.7 17 1.89 25.5 0.75 0.27 -0.2 3.9 2.39 21.1
Paniagua,J 1 0.3 4106.21 -3.8 0.00 0.00 0.0 -1.3 69.06 -2.4
Sanders,D 20 22.0 16 6.44 -4.1 0.60 0.16 -3.1 0.0 7.86 -7.6
Schoeneweis, 20 26.0 16 5.45 -1.9 0.75 0.31 0.5 -1.5 5.00 -0.7
Sullivan,S 15 14.3 6 3.70 1.7 1.07 0.42 -0.3 0.8 4.44 0.5
White,R 34 47.7 39 7.24 -13.1 0.76 0.22 1.5 -2.5 6.48 -9.0
Wright,D 5 16.7 6 3.19 2.9 1.20 0.50 1.6 -0.3 2.01 5.1
Wunsch,K 43 36.0 13 3.20 6.3 0.74 0.29 -1.9 1.5 4.11 2.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS 361 418.0 209 4.43 16.1 0.66 0.24 4.48 13.4



So Other then Marte and Gordon, Bradfor was head and shoulders abouve anyone in the Sox pen. A few addtional wins puts us in the playoffs.

jeremyb1
04-15-2004, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
There are probably 30-50 Solid to very good RH relievers in baseball. How many catchers with Olivo's talents are there? 5 or 10 tops?

And don't even get me started if you think the middle-relief role is NEARLY as important as the set-up or closing role. The pressure and importance of that role far outweighs any middle-reliever's value.

Being a catcher that can run makes Olivo more unique than valuable. 10 or 15 stolen bases by an OF isn't regarded as anything spectacular yet because Olivo is a five tool catcher he's spectacular? A handful of stolen bases from your catcher doesn't really catapult you into the world series. I'd trade them for five home runs a season without much thought. Its fun that Olivo is a catcher that can run but being well rounded and versatile is hugely overrated in a lot of circles. Its not particularly likekly he'll hit as well as IRod or Posada anytime soon and being a "five tool player" doesn't substitute for that kind of offensive production.

In reality Olivo will probably perform about as well as Ramon Hernandez did last season and Billy Beane traded him because he didn't want to pay him what he would command in arbitration so that's another reason Beane didn't make some horrible error in that trade, he did what he set out to. You can disagree with his philosophy but i wouldn't say he made a mistake because that implies he didn't accomplish what he set out to do.

First of all, Bradford would classify as the "set up man" if you're fixated on assigning lables to all of the pitchers in the pen, not a middle reliever. He typically pitches the late innings in close games, that's his role. As far as pressure goes, why do feel Bradford is somehow incapable of handling it? If you read moneyball before critisizing it, Beane tells Art Howe to put Bradford in the game whenever he feels the game is on the line, ie any high leverage innings prior to the 9th. I don't know about you but I'd feel a lot more pressure if I was routinely coming into games in the 7th and 8th innings in a one run game or a game that's tied than coming into the 9th inning with a three run lead.

People have an unreasonable tendency to overrate the importance of the mental aspect of the game of baseball. I'm not familiar with too many players that were outstanding in middle relief but with a good sample size of chances pitched terribly in the 9th inning because of the pressure. Think about it. These are professional athletes, they've faced enormous pressure throughout their entire careers. If they buckled under it how could they make it to the major leagues? For some reason everyone is enamored with the idea that closers aren't particularly talented as pitchers what their real success happens to be is the ability to "buckle down" and have a "bulldog attitude" in the 9th inning. Its a myth. Relievers pitching in a tied game don't excel at performing under pressure? Batters in extra innings don't either?

I find it interesting that I made a number of arguments why the 9th inning is not more important than the 8th and instead of addressing them all you said is "don't even get me started."

jeremyb1
04-15-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
So Other then Marte and Gordon, Bradfor was head and shoulders abouve anyone in the Sox pen. A few addtional wins puts us in the playoffs.

Also if you look Bradford was 3.8 wins above replacement last season and his likely replacement Rick White was .1 wins above replacement so 3.7 wins in a division decided by four games makes it mighty close.

Dadawg_77
04-15-2004, 06:08 PM
Bradford was also the best pitcher in not allowing inherited runners to score last year. Tom Gordon was thrid.

voodoochile
04-15-2004, 07:23 PM
Okay, so Bradford was a good relief pitcher last year, that STILL isn't as important as a catcher.

The comment about an OF not being special if they steal 10-15 bases misses the point. Yes, a catcher who can do all the things Olivo does is extra special, because if you still get the other production from your other positions, then the extra production from your catcher can put you ahead of the competition.

In addition, Olivo will have a much bigger impact on games this season because of the number of innings he will perform in, the amount of time he will spend directly influencing the game by handling pitchers, etc.

Good relievers are just that... good relievers which makes them never as important as any position starter or any of the 5 SP. Thus has it ever been, thus will it ever be...

jeremyb1
04-15-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Okay, so Bradford was a good relief pitcher last year, that STILL isn't as important as a catcher.

The comment about an OF not being special if they steal 10-15 bases misses the point. Yes, a catcher who can do all the things Olivo does is extra special, because if you still get the other production from your other positions, then the extra production from your catcher can put you ahead of the competition.

In addition, Olivo will have a much bigger impact on games this season because of the number of innings he will perform in, the amount of time he will spend directly influencing the game by handling pitchers, etc.

Good relievers are just that... good relievers which makes them never as important as any position starter or any of the 5 SP. Thus has it ever been, thus will it ever be...

I certainly agree with you that if Olivo is anywhere near as good at being a catcher as Bradford has been at being a reliever he will be much more valuable than Bradford. However, that remains to be seen. You can really put any stock whatsoever into 20 at bats from this season and last year Olivo was at best a little above average for a catcher.

My point about stealing bases is that there's no inherent value in a catcher stealing bases that doesn't exist in a another player stealing bases. If Olivo steals 15 bases this season we'd get the same stolen bases production by dealing Maggs for a player of much lesser offensive calliber that steals 30 bases instead of 15 and having a catcher with 0 steals. In the end 15 bases from your catcher is just that, 15 more stolen bases that you otherwise would've had, which means very little in the long run as compared to something like 15 (or even 8) home runs. People are trying to say Olivo is better than other catchers because he steals bases when really he's only different from other catchers. If he hits like Posada and IRod and steals 15 bases then yes he is better than them but is not likely to happen anytime soon.

However, one caveat is that even if Olivo ends up being far better than Bradford that doesn't necessarily mean it was a great trade by KW and Beane was fleeced. Everyone loves to use 20/20 hindsight to evaluate trades but that's completely worthless because GMs can't see into the future when they make trades. You have to evaluate the information at the time of the deal and the scouting reports and statistics didn't suggest Olivo was going to be a superstar, he was a player that was somewhat old for his league and didn't perform outstandingly. If there was a 1 in 50 chance of Olivo become a superstar at the time of the trade and that does happen, that doesn't mean it was a wonderful deal it could just mean that KW got lucky.

voodoochile
04-15-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I certainly agree with you that if Olivo is anywhere near as good at being a catcher as Bradford has been at being a reliever he will be much more valuable than Bradford. However, that remains to be seen. You can really put any stock whatsoever into 20 at bats from this season and last year Olivo was at best a little above average for a catcher.

However, one caveat is that even if Olivo ends up being far better than Bradford that doesn't necessarily mean it was a great trade by KW and Beane was fleeced. Everyone loves to use 20/20 hindsight to evaluate trades but that's completely worthless because GMs can't see into the future when they make trades. You have to evaluate the information at the time of the deal and the scouting reports and statistics didn't suggest Olivo was going to be a superstar, he was a player that was somewhat old for his league and didn't perform outstandingly. If there was a 1 in 50 chance of Olivo become a superstar at the time of the trade and that does happen, that doesn't mean it was a wonderful deal it could just mean that KW got lucky.


Well, last year was Olivo's first year at any level above AA ball, so certainly you have to admit that it is promising to have him be above league average given those constraints. You like talking about prospects, what are your expectations for him?

Both teams dealt from depth. The A's had no need of another catching prospect and the Sox were loaded with minor league pitchers with "promise". At that stage of the game, evaluating who fleeced who becomes moot. I doubt the A's miss Olivo and the Sox are damned happy with him.

You edited, so so will I...

The stolen bases may not be that important, but even if you take them away, he is still a solid catcher both offensively and defensively. In fact, his defense is simply fantastic and already near the top of the league (IMO). His arm is one of the best or the best in the league at present. All of that right there makes him an effective catcher. Then you add in his offensive potential and it puts him in a class that few are around the league. His stolen bases become the cherry on the ice cream sundae and you don't want to dis the cherry... :D:

MRKARNO
04-15-2004, 07:58 PM
I think that Pudge Rodriguez guy helped out those Marlins a helluva lot.

Plus, now we want to talk sabermetrically:

Chad Bradford had 9 win shares last year, equal to 3 wins under the system.

For comparison sake

Marte: 15 WS
Gordon: 11 WS
Olivo: 8 WS

So if in his first full ML season, Olivo can get us 8 WS in limited time, I think he can do a lot better this year, especially based on what he's shown us so far. Pudge had 23 WS last year. Pudge batted .297 with only 16 homers and a 55/92 BB/K ratio and 85 RBI. I think that Olivo could approach these numbers this year, especially the home run number.

Any way you look at it, the trade was good for us. Why is a really good catcher important? Because it's not every day that you find a catcher with good offense and who gets extra outs on the defensive side. Olivo could very well be selected as the backup catcher in the All Star game. Good righty relievers are dime a dozen, but while we could have olivo as our cathers, many other teams are stuck with the Michael Barretts, Mike Mathenies and Damian Millers of the world (aka no offense) causing a lot more outs at the bottom of the lineup.

kermittheefrog
04-15-2004, 08:38 PM
So what are we arguing about right now because I'd like to jump in?

Daver
04-15-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
So what are we arguing about right now because I'd like to jump in?

To summarize,the the statheads think Chad Bradford is a better player than Miguel Olivo,based purely on nothing but stats.

The fact that Olivo is a five tool catcher in an organization that has zero depth at catcher means nothing to them,because his numbers do not compare well to Bradfords.

voodoochile
04-15-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
So what are we arguing about right now because I'd like to jump in?

I'd love to hear your analysis of Olivo's performance and what your expectations are for him down the road.

jabrch
04-15-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Daver
To summarize,the the statheads think Chad Bradford is a better player than Miguel Olivo,based purely on nothing but stats.

The fact that Olivo is a five tool catcher in an organization that has zero depth at catcher means nothing to them,because his numbers do not compare well to Bradfords.

Thus showing that a calculator and a spreadsheet should be a very small part of evaluating talent. Olivo will help this team far more this year than the best of setup men. There are many relievers on par with Bradford, many teams, including the Sox have a few of them. There are very few catchers with 5 tools in the game. Yet Michael Lewis and Billy Beane have duped a lot of people into believeing that their calculators are right and that KW is an idiot - because their book says so. Amazing.

kermittheefrog
04-15-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I'd love to hear your analysis of Olivo's performance and what your expectations are for him down the road.

I like Olivo but I don't think he's ever going to be a star. I think at best we're he's going to be slightly above average with the bat. Calling him five tool is a little misguided. We're talking about a guy who hit 6 homers in his good year at AA and totaled 20 homers over 2 years at that level. And the thing is as a catcher I imagine his speed, one of his assets, is going to go away more quickly than it would at any other position.

All that said I think Randar is right when he says a catcher like Olivo is more of a rare commodity than a pitcher like Bradford. Olivo is a good guy to have around as a starting catcher until he hits free agency, with his upside being Ramon Hernandez. He sure can hit lefties (860 OPS last year), he could use to learn to hit righties. So the Olivo/Bradford trade wasn't bad, maybe even good for both team. But there's just no defending the Foulke trade unless Cotts becomes a great pitcher and I don't think thats going to happen.

kermittheefrog
04-15-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Thus showing that a calculator and a spreadsheet should be a very small part of evaluating talent. Olivo will help this team far more this year than the best of setup men. There are many relievers on par with Bradford, many teams, including the Sox have a few of them. There are very few catchers with 5 tools in the game. Yet Michael Lewis and Billy Beane have duped a lot of people into believeing that their calculators are right and that KW is an idiot - because their book says so. Amazing.

You sure have said some stupid as hell things in this thread. First of all, Keith Foulke pitched damn well in 2002 except for about a month (sounds like a typical Foulke season actually). That month happened early in the season and Manuel panicked and took Foulke out of the closer role, thereby depriving him of saves but not making him a bad pitcher. Foulke was a great pitcher and he proved it once again with Oakland last year (he even got a lot of saves).

Not getting saves doesn't make you a bad pitcher. If Joe Torre decided to stop using Mariano Rivera in save situations and he didn't get anymore saves does that make him a bad pitcher? No, it just means Joe Torre stopped using Rivera in save situations.

Finally, who has four straight playoff appearances and who has zero playoff appearances? Who started with a 95 win team and who started with a crappy team? Who deals with a smaller budget?

Billy Beane wins all those questions. Can we please see one Williams team make the playoffs? I mean I'd love to see it, I'm a Sox fan. Yet Williams isn't half the GM Beane is.

MRKARNO
04-15-2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Daver
To summarize,the the statheads think Chad Bradford is a better player than Miguel Olivo,based purely on nothing but stats.

The fact that Olivo is a five tool catcher in an organization that has zero depth at catcher means nothing to them,because his numbers do not compare well to Bradfords.

I consider myself somewhat of a stathead, but we totally fleeced Beane on this trade. We got a franchise catcher for a middle reliever. It's that simple. Olivo was just as important to the sox as Bradford to the A's LAST YEAR, and Olivo will only get better and should help the sox out more than Bradford the A's in 04 based on what I see of him as a hitter and as a defensive catcher.

doublem23
04-15-2004, 09:52 PM
Why isn't anyone just willing to admit that the Olivo-Bradford deal was win/win?

jeremyb1
04-15-2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, last year was Olivo's first year at any level above AA ball, so certainly you have to admit that it is promising to have him be above league average given those constraints. You like talking about prospects, what are your expectations for him?

Both teams dealt from depth. The A's had no need of another catching prospect and the Sox were loaded with minor league pitchers with "promise". At that stage of the game, evaluating who fleeced who becomes moot. I doubt the A's miss Olivo and the Sox are damned happy with him.

You edited, so so will I...

The stolen bases may not be that important, but even if you take them away, he is still a solid catcher both offensively and defensively. In fact, his defense is simply fantastic and already near the top of the league (IMO). His arm is one of the best or the best in the league at present. All of that right there makes him an effective catcher. Then you add in his offensive potential and it puts him in a class that few are around the league. His stolen bases become the cherry on the ice cream sundae and you don't want to dis the cherry... :D:

I think odds are good Olivo will be more valuable than Bradford in the long run. Due to the lack of hitting at his position, he doesn't have to be great to be worth a lot. The important thing at this point though is not to put too much worth in 20 at bats. In all honesty we really don't know any more than we did prior to the spring about how well Olivo will do this season. So far he does look good though. I'll maintain though that his value isn't concentrated in his being "a five tool catcher" or stealing bases, it lies in being able to produce well offensively for a catcher since most catcher's don't hit very well.

With regard to dealing from a position of strenght I'm not sure exactly how strong our pen was at that point. Olivo did fall into the A's depth at catcher but if he looked like a stud to Beane or other clubs he wouldn't have been traded under those circumstances. His strong development over the past few seasons has to be considered at least slightly unexpected in my opinion.

My biggest complaint about the trade is not Olivo, it's how our organization treated Bradford. He dominated in AAA and then Schu sent him home from spring training in '00 claiming he didn't have the same movement on his pitches. If he'd thrown 95 and put up those numbers in AAA he would've been a Royce Ring type prospect that we would've held onto very dearly. However, because he didn't Beane was able to call up KW and tell him he was looking for a 12th pitcher someone to add depth, maybe to bring to spring training and got KW to somehow offer up Bradford under those circumstances. KW couldn't have thought Olivo was a great prospect or he wouldn't have asked for him for what he viewed as the equivalent to Gary Glover.

kermittheefrog
04-15-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Why isn't anyone just willing to admit that the Olivo-Bradford deal was win/win?

It was really. They won in the short term, we win long term.

rahulsekhar
04-15-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1

Everyone loves to use 20/20 hindsight to evaluate trades but that's completely worthless because GMs can't see into the future when they make trades. You have to evaluate the information at the time of the deal and the scouting reports and statistics didn't suggest Olivo was going to be a superstar, he was a player that was somewhat old for his league and didn't perform outstandingly. If there was a 1 in 50 chance of Olivo become a superstar at the time of the trade and that does happen, that doesn't mean it was a wonderful deal it could just mean that KW got lucky.

One of the roles of a GM is to project the future value of various prospects to value them either for trading away or acquisition. So GM's do have to "see into the future", in fact that's one of their primary jobs: figuring out what a guy (veteran or rookie) will do in their lineup/stadium/city/organizational style.

Bradford was and is an excellent middle reliever. Olivo appears to be on his way to being an All-Star caliber catcher. I will take the latter any day of the week (and I believe so would most GMs), so kudos to Kenny for his prognostication ability. If he's going to get raked over the coals for dealing guys like Wells/Fogg who hadn't accomplished much when they were dealt, he needs to get kudos for taking a strong player at a relatively deep position that has medim impact on games and turning that into a strong player at a much shallower one that has a much greater impact on games. (And by your statement above, how could KW have been expected to know Wells would improve since he can't look into the future?)

soxtalker
04-15-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
...
My biggest complaint about the trade is not Olivo, it's how our organization treated Bradford. He dominated in AAA and then Schu sent him home from spring training in '00 claiming he didn't have the same movement on his pitches. If he'd thrown 95 and put up those numbers in AAA he would've been a Royce Ring type prospect that we would've held onto very dearly. However, because he didn't Beane was able to call up KW and tell him he was looking for a 12th pitcher someone to add depth, maybe to bring to spring training and got KW to somehow offer up Bradford under those circumstances. KW couldn't have thought Olivo was a great prospect or he wouldn't have asked for him for what he viewed as the equivalent to Gary Glover.

I agree with this comment. The trade helped both sides. We desperately needed catching help in our system, and Olivo appears to have been worth the wait. The A's needed and have made excellent use of Bradford over the past few seasons.

The biggest problem with this trade is not the trade itself. It is that the Sox did not know that they were trading away a pitcher of Bradford's real caliber, and -- worse than that -- they might never have given him a chance if the trade had not been consumated. I'd probably still have made the trade if I'd known Bradford's ability, but I'm not happy that the organization had simply decided he had no future at all in the major leagues.

Rex Hudler
04-15-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Bradford is a middle freaking releiver. There is nobody in baseball in that role that can be called a "stud". Miguel Olivo is a 5-tool catcher. How many of those are there in baseball?

*****... Bradford's a "stud"???

Unless you are talking screwdrivers and drills, Olivo is not a 5-tool catcher. Making that claim is about as accurate as Bradford being called a stud. At least you were halfway right.

All that said, Olivo has a chance to be a real nice starting catcher and Bradford has been a very good reliever for several years for Oakland. Too many people are worried about who wins or loses a trade. As long as the trade helps your club, it doesn't matter how it helped or didn't help the other team.

I'd say this trade was mutually beneficial, which is the idea behind trades in the first place.

Rex Hudler
04-15-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Tim Hummel is currently burning up AAA at a .125 clip for Cincinnati. I don't think he will be missed...

Why quote stats only one week into the season? Stats mean NOTHING right now..

Rex Hudler
04-15-2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Why isn't anyone just willing to admit that the Olivo-Bradford deal was win/win?

doublem, I will actually agree with you for once... you cannot discount that Oakland got three years of positive results out of Bradford while we are still waiting for Olivo to come into his own. The A's made the playoffs during those years. Those factors make it impossible for this deal to be considered a "fleecing" by KW, no matter how well Olivo does.

Just like a tie in the All-Star game, sometimes, there doesn't have to be a winner and a loser.

FarWestChicago
04-16-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Why quote stats only one week into the season? Stats mean NOTHING right now.. That's a good thing for the Bradford supporters. He's pitching batting practice so far this season. I love listening to my obnoxious A's employee bitch about him. :D:

gosox41
04-16-2004, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Where is everyone in line to bless Billy Beane as the next king of the world for how he fleeced the Sox out of the Great Chad Bradford for Miguel Olivo? Where are all the Kenny Williams bashers?

Olivo is, in front of our eyes, developing into a complete player, both offensively and defensively. Raise your proverbial hand if you'd rather have Bradford on this club for today and the future than Olivo?

I'll continue to bash KW and be a fan of Beane. Hopefully Olivo turns into a star, though I'm not ready to procliam him one after 7 games.

It still doesn't change a couple of things:

1. The reason Beane made the trade (to fill an immediate hole for a team trying to win now.

2. Beane is still twice the GM KW is. KW is improving, but still lagging way behind Beane.


Bob

gosox41
04-16-2004, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Daver
To summarize,the the statheads think Chad Bradford is a better player than Miguel Olivo,based purely on nothing but stats.

The fact that Olivo is a five tool catcher in an organization that has zero depth at catcher means nothing to them,because his numbers do not compare well to Bradfords.

Daver,

I think you're misinterpreting the point. Or at least my point which I've posted a lot. The A's and Sox were both contending for the playoffs the last 3 seasons. The fact is Bradford did benefit the A's each of the last 3 seasons and they made the playoffs all 3. The Sox didn't make it once. One reason is not the fact that we lost Chad Bradford, but the fact that our GM who wants to win now was making a trade for tomorrow while not adequately filling holes he created today (or in this case 2001-2003)


Bob

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
It was really. They won in the short term, we win long term.

Maybe, I think Olivo is vastly overrated as the second coming of Fisk by some. If his biggest asset is his speed, then he really doesnít have one, as speed is first thing to fade on any player let alone a catcher. I value production over tools any day and Olivo has been lacking there. I still believe if the Sox kept Bradford, the Sox would have made the playoffs. Making the postseason is more valuable then average to slighty abover average catcher.

hold2dibber
04-16-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Also if you look Bradford was 3.8 wins above replacement last season and his likely replacement Rick White was .1 wins above replacement so 3.7 wins in a division decided by four games makes it mighty close.

Actually, assuming for a moment that the Sox had kept Bradford, I think it more likely that the Sox never would have signed Gordon (they wouldn't have felt the need to spend the comparatively "big" money on Gordon in the '02/'03 off season).

ChiSoxBobette
04-16-2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by wdelaney72
As far as I can tell, the score is 1-1. K-dub gets a score on the Olivo / Bradford trade.

Beane gets the nod on the Foulke / Koch deal. I wasn't the biggest fan of Keith Foulke, but I think Koch's performance over the last 2 seasons speaks for itself.

Not if Neal Cotts becomes a proven starter , I would have to say Beane bombed. We might still have Koch but we also got Cotts and Beane does'nt even have Foulke.

hold2dibber
04-16-2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
However, one caveat is that even if Olivo ends up being far better than Bradford that doesn't necessarily mean it was a great trade by KW and Beane was fleeced. Everyone loves to use 20/20 hindsight to evaluate trades but that's completely worthless because GMs can't see into the future when they make trades. You have to evaluate the information at the time of the deal and the scouting reports and statistics didn't suggest Olivo was going to be a superstar, he was a player that was somewhat old for his league and didn't perform outstandingly. If there was a 1 in 50 chance of Olivo become a superstar at the time of the trade and that does happen, that doesn't mean it was a wonderful deal it could just mean that KW got lucky.

Come on, Jeremy, that's ridiculous. I'm sorry, but GMs have to be evaluated in hind sight. Regardless of whether a trade made sense at the time, if it turns out to be a disaster, the GM is (rightfully) held accountable. When you're making trades, the very point is to prognosticate the future performance of the players involved. If you're wrong, you're wrong and will be (and should be) held accountable. If Miguel Olivo goes onto a hall of fame, 15 year career with the Sox (as unlikely as that was at the time of the trade), that trade was a winner for the Sox, even if it was a reasonable trade for Beane at the time.

MisterB
04-16-2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Maybe, I think Olivo is vastly overrated as the second coming of Fisk by some. If his biggest asset is his speed, then he really doesnít have one, as speed is first thing to fade on any player let alone a catcher. I value production over tools any day and Olivo has been lacking there. I still believe if the Sox kept Bradford, the Sox would have made the playoffs. Making the postseason is more valuable then average to slighty abover average catcher.

You're claiming the Sox were only one righty middle reliever shy of the playoffs the last 3 years? Lack of starting pitching, an inconsistent all-or-nothing offense, a rash of injuries, and an inept manager had absolutely nothing to do with it, huh?

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
You're claiming the Sox were only one righty middle reliever shy of the playoffs the last 3 years? Lack of starting pitching, an inconsistent all-or-nothing offense, a rash of injuries, and an inept manager had absolutely nothing to do with it, huh?

Not for 2001 or 2002, but we were that close last year.

rdivaldi
04-16-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Why quote stats only one week into the season? Stats mean NOTHING right now..

Okay, Tim Hummel also hit .226 for Cincinnati last year with a "stellar" OPS of .647.

All I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't really be pouting over the loss of "The Great" Tim Hummel.

voodoochile
04-16-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Not for 2001 or 2002, but we were that close last year.

I completely disagree with this assessment. Our RHRP was pretty solid all year and once they got Sullivan it was definitely good.

You also have already admited that Olivo is average or slightly above average and he is only a second year player who is just over a year removed from AA ball. Are you saying you think he is already at his ceiling?

Randar68
04-16-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
KW couldn't have thought Olivo was a great prospect or he wouldn't have asked for him for what he viewed as the equivalent to Gary Glover.

This might be one of the most stupid, biased, assumptions I've ever read from you, and that is really saying something.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Unless you are talking screwdrivers and drills, Olivo is not a 5-tool catcher. Making that claim is about as accurate as Bradford being called a stud. At least you were halfway right.

All that said, Olivo has a chance to be a real nice starting catcher and Bradford has been a very good reliever for several years for Oakland. Too many people are worried about who wins or loses a trade. As long as the trade helps your club, it doesn't matter how it helped or didn't help the other team.

I'd say this trade was mutually beneficial, which is the idea behind trades in the first place.

I'm sorry, but what tools is he missing, Rex? I'd bet a lot of money that Olivo will hit over 25 homers multiple seasons in his career if he stays healthy.

Arm, Speed, defense, average, power. 5-tools, my friend. He'll be a .290-hitting catcher with All-Star defense and 25 HR's. You tell me what he's missing, because I don't see it.

The power is there. Nobody in the majors Miguel's size has that kind of bat speed without significant power.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I completely disagree with this assessment. Our RHRP was pretty solid all year and once they got Sullivan it was definitely good.

You also have already admited that Olivo is average or slightly above average and he is only a second year player who is just over a year removed from AA ball. Are you saying you think he is already at his ceiling?

No I am saying that is his celling. He hasn't hit it yet, currently he is below average.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Maybe, I think Olivo is vastly overrated as the second coming of Fisk by some. If his biggest asset is his speed, then he really doesnít have one, as speed is first thing to fade on any player let alone a catcher. I value production over tools any day and Olivo has been lacking there. I still believe if the Sox kept Bradford, the Sox would have made the playoffs. Making the postseason is more valuable then average to slighty abover average catcher.

Lacking there? What did Olivo do in his second season of AA??? That's right, he hit over .300 with good power numbers in a pitcher's park.

At least give him an entire 2nd season of MLb experience considering he came straight from AA. Catchers ALWAYS develop later than other players. There is just too much physical and mental learning that takes place on the defensive side for any prospect to concentrate at the needed level on their offense during their development.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No I am saying that is his celling. He hasn't hit it yet, currently he is below average.

"currently below average?"

Where? What aspect? *****. He's a catcher who has played 1 year above AA. You don't think he's going to make a huge leap this year? He has at every level of his development, made huge improvements his second go-around.

Last year, considering his entire game, he was probably a league-average catcher, if not above based solely on his defense.

kermittheefrog
04-16-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm sorry, but what tools is he missing, Rex? I'd bet a lot of money that Olivo will hit over 25 homers multiple seasons in his career if he stays healthy.

Arm, Speed, defense, average, power. 5-tools, my friend. He'll be a .290-hitting catcher with All-Star defense and 25 HR's. You tell me what he's missing, because I don't see it.

The power is there. Nobody in the majors Miguel's size has that kind of bat speed without significant power.

I think we'd be correct in questioning Olivo's power. He never showed 25 home run type of power in the minors. He hit a lot of doubles and a lot of triples. Sometimes the doubles turn into home runs but that tends to be with younger players, Olivo wasn't really young for the leagues he was in.

kermittheefrog
04-16-2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
"currently below average?"


Last year, considering his entire game, he was probably a league-average catcher, if not above based solely on his defense.

His OPS versus right handed pitching was around 550. Thats not a league average starting catcher.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
"currently below average?"

Where? What aspect? *****. He's a catcher who has played 1 year above AA. You don't think he's going to make a huge leap this year? He has at every level of his development, made huge improvements his second go-around.

Last year, considering his entire game, he was probably a league-average catcher, if not above based solely on his defense.

His value over a replacement level player was around -5 last year.
Hitting .300 in your second year of AA ball isn't the same as .300 in the MLB. I valued production more then tools and potential and Olivo hasn't cut it production wise.

CWSGuy406
04-16-2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
We gave up basically nothing for those guys, Josh Rupe is probably the only one of consequence. The rest were extremely young or just trash.

I think Royce Ring will be an effective closer sometime down the road - he went to the Mets in the Alomar deal...

CWSGuy406
04-16-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
Not if Neal Cotts becomes a proven starter , I would have to say Beane bombed. We might still have Koch but we also got Cotts and Beane does'nt even have Foulke.

But even in that trade, Beane traded from a position of strength, pitching. Where was Cotts going to fit into the mix with Zito, Hudson, Mulder, and Lilly there, and to an extent the up-and-coming Harden and Blanton.

I agree with the people saying that perhaps both teams won. We got what we needed, a catcher who has a gun behind the plate and good hitting potential, and we gave up a reliever, who in our eyes (though he might have been wrongly judged) wasn't that good.

maurice
04-16-2004, 02:04 PM
IMO, Olivo's most valuable tools are his glove and arm. Any speed, high average, and power he provides are bonuses which do not often occur among elite defensive cathers.

Would those who think that Olivo is a below-average catcher please name the 15 catchers they would rather have behind the plate for the Sox this season?

Health Warning: Please don't claim that a catcher is necessarily better than Olivo simply because they have a higher OPS. Daver and Randar will read your response.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
His value over a replacement level player was around -5 last year.
Hitting .300 in your second year of AA ball isn't the same as .300 in the MLB. I valued production more then tools and potential and Olivo hasn't cut it production wise.

Exactly why you are nothing but dead wrong here. Catchers develop later, using HR totals in AA as a 22 year-old is retarded.

rdivaldi
04-16-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
I think Royce Ring will be an effective closer sometime down the road - he went to the Mets in the Alomar deal...

I highly doubt that. Ring has nowhere near the "stuff" to be a closer. Lefthanders that throw in the high 80's aren't going to be able to get tough righthanders out in the ninth inning. Royce has good control, but I doubt he'll ever be anything more than a left handed setup man.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I highly doubt that. Ring has nowhere near the "stuff" to be a closer. Lefthanders that throw in the high 80's aren't going to be able to get tough righthanders out in the ninth inning. Royce has good control, but I doubt he'll ever be anything more than a left handed setup man.

Yep. His ceiling would be as a LH-setup man. He will be a decent releiver and probably have an unspectacular career. Drafted to be traded.

rdivaldi
04-16-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yep. His ceiling would be as a LH-setup man. He will be a decent releiver and probably have an unspectacular career. Drafted to be traded.

When I saw Royce pitch my jaw dropped at how unspectacular he was. Granted I love his attitude and his numbers are outstanding, but why in the world did we draft this guy in the first round?

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by maurice
IMO, Olivo's most valuable tools are his glove and arm. Any speed, high average, and power he provides are bonuses which do not often occur among elite defensive cathers.

Would those who think that Olivo is a below-average catcher please name the 15 catchers they would rather have behind the plate for the Sox this season?

Health Warning: Please don't claim that a catcher is necessarily better than Olivo simply because they have a higher OPS. Daver and Randar will read your response.

Well I think Daver and Randar are completely overrating Olivo.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/vorp_pos2003.htm
look for catchers.

For help the terms.
http://www.stathead.com/articles/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm

I Rod
Javie Lopez
Kendall_Jason
Lieberthal_Mike
Piazza_Mike
LaRue_Jason
LoDuca_Paul
Santiago_Benito
Posada_Jorge
Varitek_Jason
Pierzynski_AJ
Hernandez_Ramon
Molina_Ben
Hernandez_Ramon
Hall_Toby
Melhuse_Adam

jeremyb1
04-16-2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
This might be one of the most stupid, biased, assumptions I've ever read from you, and that is really saying something.

Good reasoned analysis. You took that quote out of context somewhat. A key statement that I made was that Olivo was not widely considered to be a good prospect or he wouldn't have been traded for a player the opposing GM didn't value very much. Along those lines, if you're KW and you want to work out a trade with a GM you're not going to piss him off by asking for a top prospect for a player you and to the best of your knowledge the opposing GM view as holding little value. Are you trying to think there's a chance KW had Olivo pegged as a future superstar when he made that trade? That would seem like a stupid assumption in my opinion.

Hondo
04-16-2004, 02:17 PM
Hey Dadawg,
Where did you get that info from?

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Hondo
Hey Dadawg,
Where did you get that info from?


Baseball Prospectus, I change the post to just link it. It is a lot easier to read that way.

soxtalker
04-16-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Good reasoned analysis. You took that quote out of context somewhat. A key statement that I made was that Olivo was not widely considered to be a good prospect or he wouldn't have been traded for a player the opposing GM didn't value very much. Along those lines, if you're KW and you want to work out a trade with a GM you're not going to piss him off by asking for a top prospect for a player you and to the best of your knowledge the opposing GM view as holding little value. Are you trying to think there's a chance KW had Olivo pegged as a future superstar when he made that trade? That would seem like a stupid assumption in my opinion.

I seem to remember that Olivo was ranked by BA as Oakland's #2 prospect the year we traded for him. That doesn't, of course, mean that the A's regarded him that highly, or, as someone else pointed out, that Beane had any intention of paying him the amount of money that would have required.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Good reasoned analysis. You took that quote out of context somewhat. A key statement that I made was that Olivo was not widely considered to be a good prospect or he wouldn't have been traded for a player the opposing GM didn't value very much. Along those lines, if you're KW and you want to work out a trade with a GM you're not going to piss him off by asking for a top prospect for a player you and to the best of your knowledge the opposing GM view as holding little value. Are you trying to think there's a chance KW had Olivo pegged as a future superstar when he made that trade? That would seem like a stupid assumption in my opinion.

Assumptions like these are asinine. Trying to guess what he was thinking is ludicrous. You're so blinded by this love-affair of defending Beane that now you're being completely irrational.

Facts:
1) KW approached the A's about Olivo
2) KW asked what they'd be looking for in return
3) They said Bradford, who KW didn't value as highly as the A's did
4) Trade was made.

*** in that is indicative of KW not knowing what he was getting. If you asked the Yankees for Alex Rodgriguez and they told you they'd have to have Fabio Castro in return, *** would you do, tell them you just don't have it in your heart to get that good of a deal???

Are you nuts? Seriously, now you're being completely irrational. You just can't admit that KW and the White Sox scouts really liked Olivo and went after him. You are trying to make it sound as if the Sox just lucked into him and the A's ripped off the Sox by getting a middle reliever out of it! *****!

Hondo
04-16-2004, 02:30 PM
Thanks for the link, Dadawg.
I like Olivo and going to allow another year before judging fully.
While I'm a Bill James devotee, I do believe there are some things as a catcher that you can't quite quantify.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Well I think Daver and Randar are completely overrating Olivo.


And I think basing an analysis of a minor league catcher or one a single year removed from AA, on OPS or his stats against RH-ed pitchers might be the most uneducated or misguided methods I've ever read.

Don't bother analyzing his physical talents or his swing or his mental abilities or intangibles, heck, you can't find a fancy little stat to quantify that, huh?

Derek Jeter might be the 4th or 5th best SS in the AL based purely on stats, but I'd take him over anyone but A-Rod, wouldn't you?

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 02:34 PM
His scouting report form Stats INC via ESPN.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/scouting?statsId=7028

Scouting Report

2003 Season
Making the jump from Double-A Birmingham last year, Miguel Olivo established himself as the White Sox' No. 1 catcher. He was a steadying presence behind the plate, especially contributing to the success of Esteban Loaiza. However, he did not hit as well as was expected.


Hitting, Baserunning & Defense
Olivo sometimes seemed overmatched against hard throwers, struggling to make contact. He did not have the plate discipline he had shown in the minors. Scouts are split on whether he has the bat speed to become a high-average hitter, but his minor league portfolio suggests he will make improvements and could become a 20-homer man. Olivo has a strong arm, which helped him rank third among qualifying AL catchers in throwing out basestealers. He has good movements blocking pitches but had too many passed balls and errors. He's a good athlete with good speed, stealing 29 bases two years ago in Double-A.


2004 Outlook
Look for improvement as Olivo's comfort level increases. He started 98 games in 2003 but could jump to 120 if he is healthy all season. He's got the potential to develop into an All-Star if he improves as a hitter.





Data Source: STATS, Inc. Copyright 2004 STATS, Inc. Commercial distribution without the express written consent of STATS is prohibited.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/scouting?statsId=702

Hondo
04-16-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
And I think basing an analysis of a minor league catcher or one a single year removed from AA, on OPS or his stats against RH-ed pitchers might be the most uneducated or misguided methods I've ever read.

Don't bother analyzing his physical talents or his swing or his mental abilities or intangibles, heck, you can't find a fancy little stat to quantify that, huh?

Derek Jeter might be the 4th or 5th best SS in the AL based purely on stats, but I'd take him over anyone but A-Rod, wouldn't you?

First, Randar loves the hyperbole
Second, I'd definitely take Jeter in the playoffs/World Series but over 162 games...errr I don't know.

maurice
04-16-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I change the post to just link it.

Thank heavens you did. The original version of your post made it look like you'd rather have Sox cast-offs Brook Fordyce and Mark Johnson than Olivo.

As for the guys on your revised list, I'd place Olivo somewhere in the middle of the pack with the potential to rise near the top. Two of the guys you list have even less experience than Olivo. A handful are quite old and / or serious injury risks. Piazza's great, but I wouldn't let him catch. LaRue can't hit his way out of a moist paper bag and also is worse than Olivo defensively.

Keep in mind that Olivo has an excellent arm. His was third in the AL in throwing out baserunners last season.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Thank heavens you did. The original version of your post made it look like you'd rather have Sox cast-offs Brook Fordyce and Mark Johnson than Olivo.

As for the guys on your revised list, I'd place Olivo somewhere in the middle of the pack with the potential to rise near the top. Two of the guys you list have even less experience than Olivo. A handful are quite old and / or serious injury risks. Piazza's great, but I wouldn't let him catch. LaRue can't hit his way out of a moist paper bag and also is worse than Olivo defensively.

Keep in mind that Olivo has an excellent arm. His was third in the AL in throwing out baserunners last season.

But straight from AA, his OPS against righties was 550!!!! HE'S DOOOOOOOOMMMMED! :whiner:

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
And I think basing an analysis of a minor league catcher or one a single year removed from AA, on OPS or his stats against RH-ed pitchers might be the most uneducated or misguided methods I've ever read.

Don't bother analyzing his physical talents or his swing or his mental abilities or intangibles, heck, you can't find a fancy little stat to quantify that, huh?

Derek Jeter might be the 4th or 5th best SS in the AL based purely on stats, but I'd take him over anyone but A-Rod, wouldn't you?

No, at least Nomar would go before him. Jeter is way over hyped; he is a great SS just not as great as is said.

Hey, I distrust evaluations based on tools. I think there are filled with personal biases, and have a higher risk then something based in numbers. Plus I donít see Olivio as a perennial all star catcher. My main point was Bradford would have more valuable to the Sox the past three years then Olivio has. Thus Olivio has to cover the existing gap for this trade to be a good one in long run.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by maurice

Keep in mind that Olivo has an excellent arm. His was third in the AL in throwing out baserunners last season.

But in league with stealing depressed for historical averages, a strong arm isn't valuable as it was in the past.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Thank heavens you did. The original version of your post made it look like you'd rather have Sox cast-offs Brook Fordyce and Mark Johnson than Olivo.

As for the guys on your revised list, I'd place Olivo somewhere in the middle of the pack with the potential to rise near the top. Two of the guys you list have even less experience than Olivo. A handful are quite old and / or serious injury risks. Piazza's great, but I wouldn't let him catch. LaRue can't hit his way out of a moist paper bag and also is worse than Olivo defensively.

Keep in mind that Olivo has an excellent arm. His was third in the AL in throwing out baserunners last season.

I looked at from who could have helped us out now the most and the past three years.

maurice
04-16-2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I looked at from who could have helped us out now the most and the past three years.

I see. I assumed you were answering the question you quoted:

Originally posted by maurice
please name the 15 catchers [you] would rather have behind the plate for the Sox this season

Three years ago, Olivo clearly was less helpful to a major league club than any of those guys.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I see. I assumed you were answering the question you quoted:



Three years ago, Olivo clearly was less helpful to a major league club than any of those guys.

Let me clarify, 90% of the consideration was the here and now, 10% went to the past. I said it so someone could say Pizza wouldn't be catching in two years while Olivio would. I am not predicting future values for anyone just their current one.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No, at least Nomar would go before him. Jeter is way over hyped; he is a great SS just not as great as is said.

Hey, I distrust evaluations based on tools. I think there are filled with personal biases, and have a higher risk then something based in numbers. Plus I donít see Olivio as a perennial all star catcher. My main point was Bradford would have more valuable to the Sox the past three years then Olivio has. Thus Olivio has to cover the existing gap for this trade to be a good one in long run.

Over the last three years, it is hard to argue that. For a team with limited payroll due to management, and absolutely ZERO catching depth, this move was one of the best for the franchise over the past 10 years.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
But in league with stealing depressed for historical averages, a strong arm isn't valuable as it was in the past.

Based on your number-game, maybe not. Holding runners to shorter leads, not letting them wander off of their based to ofar after the pitch, and taking away the incentive for any hit-and-run garbage has a lot of immeasurable value, something no statistic is going to account for. To discount these kinds of things, even in a SB-depressed-era, because BP's stats don't say it's important, is hogwash.

Catcher is one of the hardest positions to rate, and frankly, I rarely trust the opinion on them from anyone other than former catchers.

Olivo might have the second-quickest hands on this team at the plate, and the ball just explodes off his bat. Experience is the biggest lacking thing for him. Better pitch-selection will come with that.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Did you really think there wouldn't be numbers for this?


It's awards season again, with people across the country anxiously awaiting the results of the Oscars, the Pulitzer Prizes, and of course the most prestigious award of them all. Yes, it's time for the third annual Golden Gun Award, honoring last year's most valuable catcher arms. The winner is the major league leader in Stolen Base Runs Prevented (SBRP), which measures the number of runs a catcher saves his team by throwing out opposing basestealers. It is calculated from the number of opponent steals (SB), the number of runners the catcher throws out (CS), and the number of runners the catcher picks off (CPO), using this simple formula:


SBRP = 0.49*(CS+CPO) - 0.16*SB


The formula is explained in my ESPN.com Pudge vs. Piazza article from 2001.

Here are the top 10 finishers from 2003:


Catcher Team SB CS CPO SBRP
------------------------------------------
Bengie Molina ANA 45 31 2 8.9
Paul Lo Duca LAD 83 43 2 8.6
Toby Hall TAM 44 31 0 8.1
Brian Schneider MON 24 21 0 6.4
Brandon Inge DET 69 33 1 5.4
Damian Miller CHC 42 25 0 5.4
Miguel Olivo CHW 34 19 2 4.8
Brad Ausmus HOU 69 31 1 4.4
Rod Barajas ARI 26 16 1 4.1
Ivan Rodriguez FLA 40 19 2 3.8


Not bad for Olivo.

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2561 [/QUOTE]

fquaye149
04-16-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by maurice



Three years ago, Olivo clearly was less helpful to a major league club than any of those guys.

so let's say we had traded the twins bradford for joe mauer. he developed in the minors for three years, but then when he came up, instead of getting injured realized his potential as a very good catcher.

meanwhile, during those three years when mauer was in the minors, bradford had very solid, but not phenomenal, years. In the long run, you're saying we lost the trade because at the time the utility was not there.


the point is this: let's say we could have traded kelly wunsch (or in the past, chad bradford) for joe mauer, bobby crosby, edwin jackson, or any highly prized minor leaguer. would you have a problem with that? since miguel olivo was not a gammons-pumped phenom, it's not a good trade and kenny's not a good gm. . .

so to recap:

if kw trades for a player who everyone already says is good, he's a good gm

but if he sees something in a player that hasn't been so highly touted, and that player turns out to be a solid starter at worst at a skill position, he just got lucky?




one more thing: sort me out on this: if we trade borchard reed or honel for guillermo mota, and mota puts up bradford like numbers, we won the trade?



oh and one last thing that needs addressing: yes we would have been better last year with bradford, though not by much if only because of jerry's butcher-like handling of the bullpen. but think of this: if we had not had olivo, we would have had sandy catching all year with josh paul backing him up. that is not a pretty thought, no matter how poorly miguel hit.

maurice
04-16-2004, 03:48 PM
:?:

I don't see how anybody in their right mind can extrapolate . . .

Three years ago, Olivo clearly was less helpful to a major league club than any of those guys.

. . . into . . .

In the long run, you're saying we lost the trade because at the time the utility was not there.

. . . particularly in light of my other posts in this thread.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Not bad for Olivo.

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2561 [/B][/QUOTE]

One thing that doesn't take into account: For the number of innings caught, how many SB attempts were there?

In other words, runners, save maybe the handful of elite basestealers, aren't going to even try to steal a base against the better-armed catchers in the game. That isn't accounted for here. The power of being a deterrent is probably greater than any CS stat.

jeremyb1
04-16-2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
the point is this: let's say we could have traded kelly wunsch (or in the past, chad bradford) for joe mauer, bobby crosby, edwin jackson, or any highly prized minor leaguer. would you have a problem with that? since miguel olivo was not a gammons-pumped phenom, it's not a good trade and kenny's not a good gm. . .

if kw trades for a player who everyone already says is good, he's a good gm

The problem is you're assuming that evaluating prospects successfully is completely impossible and that minor league players succeed in the big leagues at random. There are strong correlations between minor league performance and probably also some correlation between Baseball America's ratings of players and future success in the major leagues. Peter Gammons isn't the only one who rates prospects in fact he doesn't do so at all, he relies on statstics and scouts to do that for him. To insist that after hitting .300 in A at 21 with mediocre at best plate discipline Olivo was just as good a bet to succeed as Mauer after dominating AA pitching at 20 is completely unreasonable. There's a reason no one touted Olivo as one of the better prospects in the game at the time we acquired him and that is because he did nothing to suggest he was a top flight prospect merely a solid one.

fquaye149
04-16-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
The problem is you're assuming that evaluating prospects successfully is completely impossible and that minor league players succeed in the big leagues at random. There are strong correlations between minor league performance and probably also some correlation between Baseball America's ratings of players and future success in the major leagues. Peter Gammons isn't the only one who rates prospects in fact he doesn't do so at all, he relies on statstics and scouts to do that for him. To insist that after hitting .300 in A at 21 with mediocre at best plate discipline Olivo was just as good a bet to succeed as Mauer after dominating AA pitching at 20 is completely unreasonable. There's a reason no one touted Olivo as one of the better prospects in the game at the time we acquired him and that is because he did nothing to suggest he was a top flight prospect merely a solid one.


that's not my point. . .i know it's not random. . .but the point is, if kw could have got someone who EVERYONE thinks is great, he's a genius, but if he sees something in Olivo that Beane doesn't see, and Olivo turns out to be good, he was just lucky?

that's what i take issue with

fquaye149
04-16-2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by maurice
:?:

I don't see how anybody in their right mind can extrapolate . . .



. . . into . . .



. . . particularly in light of my other posts in this thread.


frankly i don't remember exactly which points you made and which points whoever made.

all i know is you said "three years ago miguel was of less utility to his team. . ."

if you didn't mean what i thought you meant, then what did you mean?

Randar68
04-16-2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
that's not my point. . .i know it's not random. . .but the point is, if kw could have got someone who EVERYONE thinks is great, he's a genius, but if he sees something in Olivo that Beane doesn't see, and Olivo turns out to be good, he was just lucky?

that's what i take issue with

And Beane isn't "lucky" because Lewis happenned to be sitting in the room. Big F'in Deal. Jeremy is making conclusions and assumptions that are out of the realm of reason based on a one-sided story.

maurice
04-16-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
you said "three years ago miguel was of less utility to his team. . ."

No, I actually said, "Three years ago, Olivo clearly was less helpful to a major league club than any of those guys." In other words, "In 2001, Olivo (a minor league catcher) clearly was less helpful to a major league club than a major league catcher." This clearly is true.

Is there anybody else who didn't understand what this sentence means, particularly given its context?

FarWestChicago
04-16-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149



that's not my point. . .i know it's not random. . .but the point is, if kw could have got someone who EVERYONE thinks is great, he's a genius, but if he sees something in Olivo that Beane doesn't see, and Olivo turns out to be good, he was just lucky?

that's what i take issue with


Originally posted by Randar68


And Beane isn't "lucky" because Lewis happenned to be sitting in the room. Big F'in Deal. Jeremy is making conclusions and assumptions that are out of the realm of reason based on a one-sided story. Actually, Jeremy has completed checked all logic at the door. What he is basically saying, minus the rhetoric and stats, is any trade Jeremy approves of is good and any trade Jeremy doesn't approve of is bad. The same goes for GM's. You gotta give him credit for being quite good at circular logic. It is amazing he can type things about how the players produce after the trade being inconsequential with a straight face. I'll tell you one thing though, if he were an engineer, I would not want to walk across a bridge he designed. "It doesn't matter that the bridge collapsed and you fell to your death. Several experts liked my bridge design. That means it was good. The actual performance of the bridge was just a matter of bad luck." :D:

fquaye149
04-16-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by maurice
No, I actually said, "Three years ago, Olivo clearly was less helpful to a major league club than any of those guys." In other words, "In 2001, Olivo (a minor league catcher) clearly was less helpful to a major league club than a major league catcher." This clearly is true.

Is there anybody else who didn't understand what this sentence means, particularly given its context?

well then i certainly understood what you were saying.

now what did you mean?

by the self-evident statement, what did you mean to imply about the olivo bradford deal? that it was abad short term deal for KW and a good short term deal for Beane? because i suppose we would all be willing to admit that. . .in fact we already had prior to that statement.

perhaps you meant something else that i'm missing

Randar68
04-16-2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Actually, Jeremy has completed checked all logic at the door. What he is basically saying, minus the rhetoric and stats, is any trade Jeremy approves of is good and any trade Jeremy doesn't approve of is bad. The same goes for GM's. You gotta give him credit for being quite good at circular logic. It is amazing he can type things about how the players produce after the trade being inconsequential with a straight face. I'll tell you one thing though, if he were an engineer, I would not want to walk across a bridge he designed. "It doesn't matter that the bridge collapsed and you fell to your death. Several experts liked my bridge design. That means it was good. The actual performance of the bridge was just a matter of bad luck." :D:

At least someone else sees it.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Actually, Jeremy has completed checked all logic at the door. What he is basically saying, minus the rhetoric and stats, is any trade Jeremy approves of is good and any trade Jeremy doesn't approve of is bad. The same goes for GM's. You gotta give him credit for being quite good at circular logic. It is amazing he can type things about how the players produce after the trade being inconsequential with a straight face. I'll tell you one thing though, if he were an engineer, I would not want to walk across a bridge he designed. "It doesn't matter that the bridge collapsed and you fell to your death. Several experts liked my bridge design. That means it was good. The actual performance of the bridge was just a matter of bad luck." :D:

actually that is basically how I feel about tools, 80/20 based evaluations of players. I need performance in order to say if a guy is good or not.

Edit: Now I am not saying scouting has no purpose, but scouting need to backed by preformance.

jeremyb1
04-16-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
that's not my point. . .i know it's not random. . .but the point is, if kw could have got someone who EVERYONE thinks is great, he's a genius, but if he sees something in Olivo that Beane doesn't see, and Olivo turns out to be good, he was just lucky?

that's what i take issue with

Well it wasn't just Beane though that didn't think Olivo was going to be a great player some day, it was every other GM in baseball, right? Like Beane or not he hasn't made the playoffs for four consecutive seasons by dealing players for well below their market value. So, if you want to you can argue that KW saw stardom from Olivo and no other GM saw so much as an above average catcher. I'll grant you that. I don't think its a reasonable argument because I don't think KW has magical powers that allow him to sniff out future superstars where other GMs are oblivious to their ability. Maybe Kenny saw an above average catcher where other GMs saw a mediocre catcher or something to that degree but I don't believe that GMs exist that are capable of evaluating players future performance eons better than any other GM in the game. If so they'd wrap up 100 win team after 100 win team and Kenny certainly hasn't accomplished that yet.

kermittheefrog
04-16-2004, 07:20 PM
Randar, have you even read my posts? I said that Olivo is a good guy to have around at least until he hits free agency and you fixate on the fact that I brought up he can't hit righthanded pitchers yet. Which is true, he can't hit righthanded pitchers yet, so until he proves he can hit righties, we're putting a guy in the lineup who is developing his game more than he's helping the team. Since, as you may have noticed, most major league pitchers are right handed. We're still waiting for the point when Olivo becomes a good everyday player. I think it could happen soon, hopefully this year but it's not like he was helping the team a ton last year.

jeremyb1
04-16-2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Actually, Jeremy has completed checked all logic at the door. What he is basically saying, minus the rhetoric and stats, is any trade Jeremy approves of is good and any trade Jeremy doesn't approve of is bad. The same goes for GM's. You gotta give him credit for being quite good at circular logic. It is amazing he can type things about how the players produce after the trade being inconsequential with a straight face. I'll tell you one thing though, if he were an engineer, I would not want to walk across a bridge he designed. "It doesn't matter that the bridge collapsed and you fell to your death. Several experts liked my bridge design. That means it was good. The actual performance of the bridge was just a matter of bad luck." :D:

How? Its easy to characterize my statements as circular logic and BS but if you're right you can find examples from my posts to demonstrate how all I'm relying on is my personal opinion and where my logic is circular. Lets see it.

My argument is there is set knowledge and logic that baseball people use to make trades. For instance players that perform well in the minors or players that demonstrate stellar tools in the minors at a young age are considered to be strong prospects. You won't find one GM in baseball that disagrees with that premise. Hence, a player like Kip wells who has shown strong tools and/or performed well in the minors is viewed by those in the baseball community to have promise as a young pitcher even after some struggles at the major league level. If that wasn't true KW wouldn't have been able to trade Kip for Ritchie. Clearly he was a young player with a chance to mature into a much better player so there was risk involved in that trade. Where was that circular? Where am I relying solely on my own biased viewpoint as opposed to objective baseball knowledge? I'd love to know.

The other example I used is that players that are older and players that have missed time with injuries the preceeding season, and players that are in poor condition have an increased risk of injury. Hence, David Wells had an increased risk of injury at the time we traded for him. Again, if you can explain - any of you disagreeing with me in this thread - how that is circular logic, biased, or relying on hindsight, explain it to me.

However, if you have trouble refuting it and want to just call my posts stupid and leave it at that, that apparently is always an option too.

Finally, if I were a bridge builder and terrorists set off the most powerful explosives known to man destroying the bridge I would hate to be held accountable for something that was 1) out of my control and 2) completely and utterly unpredictable at the time I built the bridge.

Dadawg_77
04-16-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well it wasn't just Beane though that didn't think Olivo was going to be a great player some day, it was every other GM in baseball, right? Like Beane or not he hasn't made the playoffs for four consecutive seasons by dealing players for well below their market value. So, if you want to you can argue that KW saw stardom from Olivo and no other GM saw so much as an above average catcher. I'll grant you that. I don't think its a reasonable argument because I don't think KW has magical powers that allow him to sniff out future superstars where other GMs are oblivious to their ability. Maybe Kenny saw an above average catcher where other GMs saw a mediocre catcher or something to that degree but I don't believe that GMs exist that are capable of evaluating players future performance eons better than any other GM in the game. If so they'd wrap up 100 win team after 100 win team and Kenny certainly hasn't accomplished that yet.

I think there was only one GM who had that magic in sports.

Randar68
04-16-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Randar, have you even read my posts? I said that Olivo is a good guy to have around at least until he hits free agency and you fixate on the fact that I brought up he can't hit righthanded pitchers yet. Which is true, he can't hit righthanded pitchers yet, so until he proves he can hit righties, we're putting a guy in the lineup who is developing his game more than he's helping the team. Since, as you may have noticed, most major league pitchers are right handed. We're still waiting for the point when Olivo becomes a good everyday player. I think it could happen soon, hopefully this year but it's not like he was helping the team a ton last year.

I'm sorry, Kermit, but he's a catcher. His OPS against righties is about the 3rd most important thing for him. Defense and his handling of the staff is FAR more valuable... Or doesn't Bill James discuss that in his last book?

Randar68
04-16-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
My argument is there is set knowledge and logic that baseball people use to make trades. For instance players that perform well in the minors or players that demonstrate stellar tools in the minors at a young age are considered to be strong prospects. You won't find one GM in baseball that disagrees with that premise. Hence, a player like Kip wells who has shown strong tools and/or performed well in the minors is viewed by those in the baseball community to have promise as a young pitcher even after some struggles at the major league level. If that wasn't true KW wouldn't have been able to trade Kip for Ritchie. Clearly he was a young player with a chance to mature into a much better player so there was risk involved in that trade. Where was that circular? Where am I relying solely on my own biased viewpoint as opposed to objective baseball knowledge? I'd love to know.


1) You apparently don't understand the definition of circular logic
2) Because Beane didn't pull the trade earlier with some other GM accounts for what?

Your bias and love affair is frankly sickening. I am more than willing to criticize KW for many things, his handling of Rauch, his failure to sign any of his catchers he's drafted, the Ritchie trade....

But you apparently have lost all sense of reason or objectivity due to this obsession with Beane. He is not some kind of perfect deity, no matter what Lewis writes or you have convinced yourself of.

Olivo was a raw talented catcher whom KW targeted as wanting to fill a gaping hole of catching talent in the organization.

Circular logic:

You saying Beane knew something nobody else did by trading for Bradford, whom the Sox undervalued, IYO, while KW lucked into Olivo by trading a player he "misused" for a player Beane didn't want...

This is really getting old, haven't you made enough laps around this ridiculously asinine race track to finally admit you don't have your own opinion outside of what you read in a book meant to deify Billy Beane???

Considering the purported subjectivity of the stats you claim to be pushing, it's pretty ironic you seem to have lost all sense of objectivity.

FarWestChicago
04-16-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
However, if you have trouble refuting it and want to just call my posts stupid and leave it at that, that apparently is always an option too.I never said you were "stupid". You are actually quite crafty. But, that doesn't mean you aren't totally illogical. You say over and over, the numbers (aka the new conventional wisdom) say I'm right. Therefore, if I'm wrong, I'm still right and it was just bad luck. I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. What are you saying? Effectively nothing. In other words, what point are you ever acutally making? And the way you butchered what I said about designing a bridge that collapses illustrates what I'm saying better than any post I could make. :smile:

Daver
04-16-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
And the way you butchered what I said about designing a bridge that collapses illustrates what I'm saying better than any post I could make. :smile:

The case could also be made for relying on stats to the point that the player is nothing more than a number.

Maybe one of these days Jeremy will learn that following any particular road blindly leads absolutely nowhere.

jeremyb1
04-16-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Circular logic:

You saying Beane knew something nobody else did by trading for Bradford, whom the Sox undervalued, IYO, while KW lucked into Olivo by trading a player he "misused" for a player Beane didn't want...

Thank you for using examples. Here are the differences between Bradford and Olivo at the time of the trade that make that comparison false.

1) Bradford was much more advanced. Prospects are best rated by their performance as they move up the ladder. A strong performance in A ball isn't very illuminating because 1) there ussually isn't a large sample size size 2) the level of competition is difficult to compare with the major leagues. Olivo still had to adjust at AA, AAA, and the major leagues to become a solid major league player. Bradford by comparison was at the upper most level of the minor leagues and therefore his future success was more of a sure thing since he'd proven himself at higher levels. Strong performance at AAA is practically the majors so it deserves much stronger consideration since the player has many fewer hurdles to leap before succeeding in the bigs.

2) Bradford's performance was much better in the minors. Obviously a great performance at AAA is better than a great performance in A ball as described in the last post. Furthermore, however, Bradford was better at AAA than Olivo was at A. Bradford posted ERAs of 1.94 and 1.51 in a significant amount of innings his last two seasons in Charlotte. Olivo by comparison was 22, rather old for A ball and didn't show a ton of power or plate discipline.

To summarize there was better reason to believe Bradford would pan out if only due to his succeeding in the upper levels of the minors whereas Olivo still had a long ways to go to be a major league calliber player. Also, Bradford was the better player in the minors leading to a better chance of success in the majors.

jeremyb1
04-16-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I never said you were "stupid". You are actually quite crafty. But, that doesn't mean you aren't totally illogical. You say over and over, the numbers (aka the new conventional wisdom) say I'm right. Therefore, if I'm wrong, I'm still right and it was just bad luck. I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. What are you saying? Effectively nothing. In other words, what point are you ever acutally making? And the way you butchered what I said about designing a bridge that collapses illustrates what I'm saying better than any post I could make. :smile:

Sorry, I completely fail to understand what you're saying. You're going to have to say "You said this (insert quote from my post) and that consitutes circular logic because" for me to understand.

FarWestChicago
04-16-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Sorry, I completely fail to understand what you're saying. You're going to have to say "You said this (insert quote from my post) and that consitutes circular logic because" for me to understand. I'm sorry, I really can't think of a simpler way to characterize your methodology.

rahulsekhar
04-16-2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1


To summarize there was better reason to believe Bradford would pan out if only due to his succeeding in the upper levels of the minors whereas Olivo still had a long ways to go to be a major league calliber player. Also, Bradford was the better player in the minors leading to a better chance of success in the majors.


You miss the point that good minor league stats dont always translate to the majors, as well as the relative value of different positions. The fact that KW could ID Olivo as a guy who'd become an ML stud (which he isnt yet, but IMO will be soon) despite him being so many "levels" away from the majors is a huge plus for him. Even if hes merely an average offensive catcher with superior D, position value & scarcity would make it a wash with aBradford-type of MR.

There are probably more than 10 MRs considered studs. There are a lot fewer catchers. Both teams traded from poisitions of strength for solid players, but long term I'd much rather have Olivo than Bradford.

voodoochile
04-16-2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
There are probably more than 10 MRs considered studs. There are a lot fewer catchers. Both teams traded from poisitions of strength for solid players, but long term I'd much rather have Olivo than Bradford.

You know, that was basically agreed to by jeremy 5 pages or so ago. I still don't understand why this thread is growing...

I stopped discussing it after we came to that agreement. I really don't know how come there needs to be more said.

The exercize in what might have happened with Bradford these past 3 years is just argument for the sake of argument. NO ONE can prove for a fact what would have happened if the trade had not been made...

Rex Hudler
04-17-2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm sorry, but what tools is he missing, Rex? I'd bet a lot of money that Olivo will hit over 25 homers multiple seasons in his career if he stays healthy.

Arm, Speed, defense, average, power. 5-tools, my friend. He'll be a .290-hitting catcher with All-Star defense and 25 HR's. You tell me what he's missing, because I don't see it.

The power is there. Nobody in the majors Miguel's size has that kind of bat speed without significant power.

When he shows he can hit with the power you say he will, I'll admit I am wrong. He has hit a total of 12 HR's the past two years. Color me skeptical.

I also don't see him hitting .290 either.

His arm is there, he has speed for a catcher and his defense is solid, but not gold glove calibur yet. Combine that with the fact I think he is an average hitter and I can't call him a 5-tool player.

Don't get me wrong, I like Miguel as a player and think he will do well. Perhaps he will develop into a great hitter, but I have never heard him referred to as a 5-tool guy and I think that is a stretch. I hope he develops as much as you think he will, but to me .270 with 10-15 HR is more likely.

Rex Hudler
04-17-2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
I think Royce Ring will be an effective closer sometime down the road - he went to the Mets in the Alomar deal...

I see Ring as a solid setup guy, not a closer.

Rex Hudler
04-17-2004, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Over the last three years, it is hard to argue that. For a team with limited payroll due to management, and absolutely ZERO catching depth, this move was one of the best for the franchise over the past 10 years.

Randar, although I may disagree with you on the level of Olivo's potential impact, I agree with you on this. Miguel was a good move for KW. I can't confirm it, but I believe Miguel got into a little trouble in the A's org and that was their reasoning for moving him. They liked Bradford and KW made the trade. It was pretty simple.

While Bradford has been good for Oakland, Olivo has given the Sox no problems (other than the corked bat incident) and has given them what they needed in terms of a potential starting catcher.

Why is it so hard for people to just see this trade as a win-win for both teams?

Rex Hudler
04-17-2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well it wasn't just Beane though that didn't think Olivo was going to be a great player some day, it was every other GM in baseball, right?

Jeremy, where do you come up with this assumption? I don't see how you can assume that Beane never thought Olivo would be a good player. Nor how you can state that every other GM thought the same?

Olivo was the A's #7 rated prospect by BA in 2000. He had a decent year in 2001 before being traded.

Granted he was not Joe Mauer, but I am curious how you come up with the idea he was not considered a good player.

kermittheefrog
04-17-2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm sorry, Kermit, but he's a catcher. His OPS against righties is about the 3rd most important thing for him. Defense and his handling of the staff is FAR more valuable... Or doesn't Bill James discuss that in his last book?

Defense is most important for catchers eh? Guess someone should tell that to all the good teams Mike Piazza and Jorge Posada have played for.

jeremyb1
04-18-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I'm sorry, I really can't think of a simpler way to characterize your methodology.

Its not the characterization that I don't understand. I understand the characterization I just don't see how its applicable to my arguments that's what you'll have to explain for me to have a good enough idea of what you're saying to respond.

jeremyb1
04-18-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
You miss the point that good minor league stats dont always translate to the majors, as well as the relative value of different positions. The fact that KW could ID Olivo as a guy who'd become an ML stud (which he isnt yet, but IMO will be soon) despite him being so many "levels" away from the majors is a huge plus for him. Even if hes merely an average offensive catcher with superior D, position value & scarcity would make it a wash with aBradford-type of MR.

There are probably more than 10 MRs considered studs. There are a lot fewer catchers. Both teams traded from poisitions of strength for solid players, but long term I'd much rather have Olivo than Bradford.

That's exactly what a large portion of this thread is about, did KW think Olivo would be a superstar (assuming he will be)? Or did he incorrectly think Olivo would be a superstar when it was highly improbable and get lucky? You have to look at these questions in terms of probability because any player in the minors could miracularlously become a superstar, that doesn't mean it was the most likely expectation. Just like I could get hit by lightening its not likely. Maybe there was a 1 in 500 chance Olivo would turn the corner and KW just got lucky. The number of levels away from the minors relates to the chance a player will reach his ceiling. A player in the low minors has a lesser chance of reaching the majors than a player that has advanced to the high minors.

jeremyb1
04-18-2004, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Jeremy, where do you come up with this assumption? I don't see how you can assume that Beane never thought Olivo would be a good player. Nor how you can state that every other GM thought the same?

Olivo was the A's #7 rated prospect by BA in 2000. He had a decent year in 2001 before being traded.

Granted he was not Joe Mauer, but I am curious how you come up with the idea he was not considered a good player.

Based on what he was traded for. Everyone can agree Beane is a relatively shrewd GM. Most considered the trade a minor move because neither player was considered to be all that great. Bradford was in fact a really good player but he was severely underrated by most GMs. In Moneyball, it is discussed how Beane called KW intending to deal for Bradford but not wanting to seem overanxious so he asked him for a guy to fill the back of the bullpen, ie not a very valuable player. If Olivo was considered to be a strong prospect Beane would've traded him for someone with greater market value than Bradford and traded a player with lesser market value for Bradford.

Regarding the BA ranking, I don't think Olivo was rated in the top 100 prospects. The A's probably weren't considered by BA to have much depth at the time and catchers are going to be rated highly if there's offensive potential there because of the weakness of the position. If we're operating under the assumption Olivo will be very good, he should've been ranked higher than 7 in the A's system since good hitting catchers are so rare.

Rex Hudler
04-18-2004, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Based on what he was traded for. Everyone can agree Beane is a relatively shrewd GM. Most considered the trade a minor move because neither player was considered to be all that great. Bradford was in fact a really good player but he was severely underrated by most GMs. In Moneyball, it is discussed how Beane called KW intending to deal for Bradford but not wanting to seem overanxious so he asked him for a guy to fill the back of the bullpen, ie not a very valuable player. If Olivo was considered to be a strong prospect Beane would've traded him for someone with greater market value than Bradford and traded a player with lesser market value for Bradford.

Regarding the BA ranking, I don't think Olivo was rated in the top 100 prospects. The A's probably weren't considered by BA to have much depth at the time and catchers are going to be rated highly if there's offensive potential there because of the weakness of the position. If we're operating under the assumption Olivo will be very good, he should've been ranked higher than 7 in the A's system since good hitting catchers are so rare.

Beane wanted to get rid of Olivo because of some trouble he got into in the A's organization. It had nothing to do with how talented he thought Olivo was. Bradford was a reliever Beane thought could help right away. Olivo was a troubled A ball catcher, several years away from the big leagues.

The deal made sense. You are thinking too much. No one is saying Olivo was considered to be in the class of Joe Mauer, but to insinuate he was an afterthought is just not correct. He was talented, somewhat troubled and young.

jeremyb1
04-18-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Beane wanted to get rid of Olivo because of some trouble he got into in the A's organization. It had nothing to do with how talented he thought Olivo was. Bradford was a reliever Beane thought could help right away. Olivo was a troubled A ball catcher, several years away from the big leagues.

The deal made sense. You are thinking too much. No one is saying Olivo was considered to be in the class of Joe Mauer, but to insinuate he was an afterthought is just not correct. He was talented, somewhat troubled and young.

Ok, but the point remains if he was considered a good prospect why trade him for a player whose GM thinks he's only good to fill out the back of a pen?

Daver
04-18-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Ok, but the point remains if he was considered a good prospect why trade him for a player whose GM thinks he's only good to fill out the back of a pen?

Because Beane trusts stats more than tools?

rahulsekhar
04-18-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
If Olivo was considered to be a strong prospect Beane would've traded him for someone with greater market value than Bradford and traded a player with lesser market value for Bradford.



I disagree with the underlying assumption that Beane can make no bad moves. It's quite possible that in this instance, he mis-evaluated Olivo, and KW got the better of him in that deal.

Thus Beane can trade a strong prospect for less than his true value. If he cannot, then he never ever makes a bad move because by definition any move he makes is good and any bad results are simply bad luck. I don't buy it.

Rex Hudler
04-18-2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Because Beane trusts stats more than tools?

And because he needed bullpen help.

Olivo was considered a decent prospect with potential who was still in Class A. Bradford, in Beane's eyes, was Major League ready. I don't see why it is so hard to grasp this deal as simply as that.

Rex Hudler
04-18-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I disagree with the underlying assumption that Beane can make no bad moves. It's quite possible that in this instance, he mis-evaluated Olivo, and KW got the better of him in that deal.

Thus Beane can trade a strong prospect for less than his true value. If he cannot, then he never ever makes a bad move because by definition any move he makes is good and any bad results are simply bad luck. I don't buy it.

Keep in mind that Olivo was "undervalued" because the A's had depth at catcher, he was still in Class A and they wanted to move him because of his "attitude". To get a Major League ready pitcher for him must have felt like a steal to Beane.

jeremyb1
04-18-2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Because Beane trusts stats more than tools?


Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I disagree with the underlying assumption that Beane can make no bad moves. It's quite possible that in this instance, he mis-evaluated Olivo, and KW got the better of him in that deal.

Thus Beane can trade a strong prospect for less than his true value. If he cannot, then he never ever makes a bad move because by definition any move he makes is good and any bad results are simply bad luck. I don't buy it.

I'm not talking about Olivo's actual value though, I'm talking about his market value as scouts and GMs from the other organizations establish it. You can argue that Beane messed up evaluating his own talent, that is difficult to do. However, its not hard to find out what other GMs think of a certain player. Beane has traded minor league players for guys like Jermaine Dye, Jose Guillen, and other big name players. He knows what his minor leaguers will fetch from other teams. If most other GMs thought Olivo was a great prospect I doubt he would've been dealt for Bradford. For that reason I don't think the argument is so much that Beane underrated Olivo as it would have to be that all 29 GMs vastly underrated him.

voodoochile
04-18-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I'm not talking about Olivo's actual value though, I'm talking about his market value as scouts and GMs from the other organizations establish it. You can argue that Beane messed up evaluating his own talent, that is difficult to do. However, its not hard to find out what other GMs think of a certain player. Beane has traded minor league players for guys like Jermaine Dye, Jose Guillen, and other big name players. He knows what his minor leaguers will fetch from other teams. If most other GMs thought Olivo was a great prospect I doubt he would've been dealt for Bradford. For that reason I don't think the argument is so much that Beane underrated Olivo as it would have to be that all 29 GMs vastly underrated him.

Not KW...

Daver
04-18-2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I'm not talking about Olivo's actual value though, I'm talking about his market value as scouts and GMs from the other organizations establish it. You can argue that Beane messed up evaluating his own talent, that is difficult to do. However, its not hard to find out what other GMs think of a certain player. Beane has traded minor league players for guys like Jermaine Dye, Jose Guillen, and other big name players. He knows what his minor leaguers will fetch from other teams. If most other GMs thought Olivo was a great prospect I doubt he would've been dealt for Bradford. For that reason I don't think the argument is so much that Beane underrated Olivo as it would have to be that all 29 GMs vastly underrated him.

Your logic is flawed from the outset then,by assuming the great Billy Beane could mis-evaluate his own talent.The truth is he does it all the time,anytime you use stats over tools to judge young players you are bound to make mistakes.Miguel Olivo and Neal Cotts are prime examples.

rahulsekhar
04-18-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't think the argument is so much that Beane underrated Olivo as it would have to be that all 29 GMs vastly underrated him.

2 things:

1)Maybe other GMs didn't underrate him, but weren't in position to offer as proven a player back, also, maybe Beane overrated Bradford (relative to Olivo)

2)Maybe all other GMs did underrate Olivo. That happens all the time with the most glaring examples being in the draft. Any stud player drafted in the 3d or later has pretty much been underrated by all remaining GMs, no? Similarly, in any trade where one gets a prospect who turns out to be a stud, all other GMs must have underrated him because if they thought he'd be a stud tey'd trade for him.

jabrch
04-18-2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Your logic is flawed from the outset then,by assuming the great Billy Beane could mis-evaluate his own talent.The truth is he does it all the time,anytime you use stats over tools to judge young players you are bound to make mistakes.Miguel Olivo and Neal Cotts are prime examples.

Daver, the great Billy Beane NEVER mis-evaluates talent. His calculator and his spreadsheet are infallable. Tools are not relevant compared to stats.

Meanwhile, KW deserves to be insulted for every deal he makes. He is NEVER right. (Loaiza, Shoenweiss, Olivo, Cotts, etc.)

Dadawg_77
04-18-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Your logic is flawed from the outset then,by assuming the great Billy Beane could mis-evaluate his own talent.The truth is he does it all the time,anytime you use stats over tools to judge young players you are bound to make mistakes.Miguel Olivo and Neal Cotts are prime examples.

So tools never fail?

Kenny who uses old school view with tools and all, has taken a young playoff team and ****ed it up. While Beane took a ****ed team and made the benchmark for small market teams. 4 playoffs and three AL West titles. I wonder whose approach is better.

FarWestChicago
04-18-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
So tools never fail?I've never seen any of the tools guys say that. What I have seen is some statheads using illogical twists to basically claim Beane is incapable of error. However, I suspect this virtually religious reverence for Beane is more based on vicariously living through him and trying claim some of that "brilliance" and "superiority" for themselves than anything. :smile:

Randar68
04-18-2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
So tools never fail?

Kenny who uses old school view with tools and all, has taken a young playoff team and ****ed it up. While Beane took a ****ed team and made the benchmark for small market teams. 4 playoffs and three AL West titles. I wonder whose approach is better.

and look at all those playoff series wins... *** is your point?

voodoochile
04-18-2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
and look at all those playoff series wins... *** is your point?

Based on the stats, they should have never lost those series...

Daver
04-18-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
So tools never fail?

Kenny who uses old school view with tools and all, has taken a young playoff team and ****ed it up. While Beane took a ****ed team and made the benchmark for small market teams. 4 playoffs and three AL West titles. I wonder whose approach is better.

How many WS rings has Beanes stats approach won?

Stats are a tool,a tool that can be overused the same as any other tool,and Beanes theory proves this.

All numbers lie to certain extent,it takes judgement of talent to find where the numbers are lying.I'll take judgements based on talent everytime.

jabrch
04-18-2004, 10:57 PM
And look at where his stats have him now. Scott Hatteberg is his 1B, Bobby Keitley, Mark Kotsay are his OF. Damian Miller is his C.

Let's look at it - which offense would you rather have - Beane's calculator generated team or KWs Tool Based team? Not much a contest is it? Oakland's pitching is what got him all the wins and divisions, not his offense. And ya know what? I don't have much bad to say about KWs ability to evaluate talened pitchers. He has done a fine job in his tenure with us for the most part.

Jjav829
04-18-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Daver
How many WS rings has Beanes stats approach won?

Stats are a tool,a tool that can be overused the same as any other tool,and Beanes theory proves this.

All numbers lie to certain extent,it takes judgement of talent to find where the numbers are lying.I'll take judgements based on talent everytime.

Blasphemy!

Let's see if Billy can calculate a stat that tells him he hasn't won a playoff series in 4 years. O wait, I guess I just did that....

The funny thing is some of the same people praising Beane for making the playoffs four straight years would be calling for KW's head if the Sox made the playoffs and lost in the first round four straight years.

Why can't people realize that 2000 was a fluke? Kenny inherited a team that got lucky - not a "playoff team." We had James Baldwin, Jim Parque, Mike Sirotka, and Cal Eldred in our starting rotation! And that's a "playoff team." So what, should KW have held on to them so we can still have a rotation featuring the likes of those four?!

CWSGuy406
04-18-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Thank you for using examples. Here are the differences between Bradford and Olivo at the time of the trade that make that comparison false.

1) Bradford was much more advanced. Prospects are best rated by their performance as they move up the ladder. A strong performance in A ball isn't very illuminating because 1) there ussually isn't a large sample size size 2) the level of competition is difficult to compare with the major leagues. Olivo still had to adjust at AA, AAA, and the major leagues to become a solid major league player. Bradford by comparison was at the upper most level of the minor leagues and therefore his future success was more of a sure thing since he'd proven himself at higher levels. Strong performance at AAA is practically the majors so it deserves much stronger consideration since the player has many fewer hurdles to leap before succeeding in the bigs.

2) Bradford's performance was much better in the minors. Obviously a great performance at AAA is better than a great performance in A ball as described in the last post. Furthermore, however, Bradford was better at AAA than Olivo was at A. Bradford posted ERAs of 1.94 and 1.51 in a significant amount of innings his last two seasons in Charlotte. Olivo by comparison was 22, rather old for A ball and didn't show a ton of power or plate discipline.

To summarize there was better reason to believe Bradford would pan out if only due to his succeeding in the upper levels of the minors whereas Olivo still had a long ways to go to be a major league calliber player. Also, Bradford was the better player in the minors leading to a better chance of success in the majors.


Sorry, but that logic still doesn't make much sense either. You say just because a player has had more success at a higher level, he's more likely to, or has a better chance to succeed in the majors. Well, take for example Brian Anderson of the White Sox. He's a young prospect playing in A-Ball. Well, Ross Gload is also a good player, who posted a 315+ Average last year with solid numbers in the minors, in AAA. Now, Ross Gload is still fairly young, even though Anderson is obviously younger. Now, say that Gload and Anderson are on different teams. Does a GM make a trade of Gload for Anderson just because Gload has put up good numbers at AAA while Anderson hasn't gotten to that level yet? No.

Why can't we just agree that the trade is a winner for both teams? Oakland got what they needed in a solid middle reliever, and we got what we needed in a potential All-Star catcher with a gun behind home plate.

gosox41
04-19-2004, 07:13 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daver
[B]Your logic is flawed from the outset then,by assuming the great Billy Beane could mis-evaluate his own talent.The truth is he does it all the time,anytime you use stats over tools to judge young players you are bound to make mistakes.Miguel Olivo


I don't think any GM is perfect, but Beane is better then most (especially compared to KW) if you're going to measure the only thing that counts: wins and losses.

Maybe Beane missed the boat on Cotts and Olivo, it's definitely still early to tell. But don't you think KW missed the boat on Foulke. Was it worth giving up Foulke and his 2 ERA and 80 IP for Cotts and a guy who had a 5.57 ERA and only 37 innings pitched? Not if you were trying to win last season. That single trade alone arguable kept the Sox out of the playoffs and let the A's in.

So if Beane gave up a future star in Cotts (and hopefully he did) for one of the best closers in the game for a chance to win right then and there, what's wrong with that? It's still not a bad trade for Beane's perspective. He found a hole in his contending team and went out and more then adequately filled it. There is nothing wrong with giving up some of the future to win now.


Bob

gosox41
04-19-2004, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Daver
How many WS rings has Beanes stats approach won?

Stats are a tool,a tool that can be overused the same as any other tool,and Beanes theory proves this.

All numbers lie to certain extent,it takes judgement of talent to find where the numbers are lying.I'll take judgements based on talent everytime.

Yeah!! Look at all the rings KW has won, oh wait, I mean playoff appearneces, no...wait...I mean second place finsihes in the weakest division in baseball


Stats isn't the only answer, but they are a factor in making a 'judgement' aboiut a player. Maybe Billy Beane takes it to far. Maybe he's also been to the playoffs more times as a GM then KW while working under tougher circumstances. I'm not saying Beane is perfect, because no GM is. But he is damn good.

When evaluating a player, you need to take a look at the big picture. Not just how fast a guy throws or how positive his attitude is, or whether or not he's a criminal, but also need to see some consistent success in his past.




Bob

gosox41
04-19-2004, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Blasphemy!

Let's see if Billy can calculate a stat that tells him he hasn't won a playoff series in 4 years. O wait, I guess I just did that....



Didn't Beane get past the first round in 2001? Not much success but more then KW and the Soxh ave had in about 45 years.


Bob

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I've never seen any of the tools guys say that. What I have seen is some statheads using illogical twists to basically claim Beane is incapable of error. However, I suspect this virtually religious reverence for Beane is more based on vicariously living through him and trying claim some of that "brilliance" and "superiority" for themselves than anything. :smile:

No statheads are sick and tired of "superiority" that "tool guys" can only see good players. That is entirely BS. The fact is stat guys value production more then anything else. The trades the A's made with the Sox were leveraging a position of strength. The fact is Cotts and Olivo wouldn't have made the A's this year. Cotts would be a 4-5 starter on A's at best when he did make the team. So take young pitcher who isn't you best, and trade him to the one of the best relief pitchers in the game. That isn't a mistake. And for all this talk about how he made a mistake with Cotts and Olivio, well they havenít done anything yet. Hopefully as a Sox fan they will have accomplishments on the major league level, but till then they still need to prove your thesis.

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Daver

All numbers lie to certain extent,it takes judgement of talent to find where the numbers are lying.I'll take judgements based on talent everytime.

And how often would you be wrong? Whose failure rate would be lower the guy looking at production or the guy fantasizing about what this player could become?

FarWestChicago
04-19-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No statheads are sick and tired of "superiority" that "tool guys" can only see good players.That still doesn't justify claiming anything Beane does that doesn't work out is "bad luck" because he's incapable of error. But, you've been real big on "two wrongs make a right" for a while. :smile:

Jjav829
04-19-2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Didn't Beane get past the first round in 2001? Not much success but more then KW and the Soxh ave had in about 45 years.


Bob

Nope. In 2001 they took a 2-0 on the Yankees before choking it away and losing 3-2. The Yankees went on to the Series to lose to the Dbacks. The A's have a nice way of choking away 2-0 leads to not get past the first round.

Jjav829
04-19-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The fact is Cotts and Olivo wouldn't have made the A's this year.

Ha, Olivo wouldn't have made the A's? You better believe he would have if Billy Beane is the genius he believes he is. They have what, Damian Miller and Adam Melhuse as their catchers? And Olivo wouldn't have made the team?

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
That still doesn't justify claiming anything Beane does that doesn't work out is "bad luck" because he's incapable of error. But, you've been real big on "two wrongs make a right" for a while. :smile:

The thing is this there isn't any real definitive characteristic of teams which win the World Series. They are characteristics of teams who make the playoffs. You can't build World Series winning teams; you can build Division winning teams. The playoffs are more determine by who is hot for that particular series or a bounce here or there. If the Yankees played the Marlins in 101 game series, I would be the Yankees come out on top each time. But with Beckett on fire the Marlins beat the Yankees in a seven game series. Getting to the playoff isnít random, but the playoffs themselves are random.

I am not saying Beane can't make a mistake, he has, but he is the best GM in the game right now.

jabrch
04-19-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The thing is this there isn't any real definitive characteristic of teams which win the World Series. They are characteristics of teams who make the playoffs. You can't build World Series winning teams; you can build Division winning teams. The playoffs are more determine by who is hot for that particular series or a bounce here or there. If the Yankees played the Marlins in 101 game series, I would be the Yankees come out on top each time. But with Beckett on fire the Marlins beat the Yankees in a seven game series. Getting to the playoff isnít random, but the playoffs themselves are random.

I am not saying Beane can't make a mistake, he has, but he is the best GM in the game right now.

I think Beane has done a great job evaluating pitching, but not so great a job evaluating offensive players. Look at their lineup now - it really isn't that good.

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I think Beane has done a great job evaluating pitching, but not so great a job evaluating offensive players. Look at their lineup now - it really isn't that good.

Look at his resources. Beane would love to get a Mags or a Manny, but he can't afford to. The biggest thing you need to consider about the A's is they are put together on the cheap because of budgetary reasons. Kenny complains fan don't go out so he can't get good players, Beane goes out and produces winning teams.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Look at his resources. Beane would love to get a Mags or a Manny, but he can't afford to. The biggest thing you need to consider about the A's is they are put together on the cheap because of budgetary reasons. Kenny complains fan don't go out so he can't get good players, Beane goes out and produces winning teams.

That's an ownership issue. KW is just repeating what his superior want the public message to be. How many times have we seen him do things creatively trying to win within the boundaries provided by JR. He got Alomar, Carl Everett and Sullivan without taking on any real payroll. I don't see this Beane love-affair. It's pretty silly if you ask me. Their payroll hasn't exactly been 20 million. Oakland's payroll is within 10 million of the Sox. They have bullpen issues, they have real problems with holes in their lineup. What is so freaking god-like about that?

Where Kenny is going to eventually be judged, IMO, is going to be by what he does over the next 2 years. He's got everyone but Frank off the payroll, essentially. Loaiza, Konerko, Koch, Valentin, that's 25+ million for next year alone. The fans demand he resign Maggs, but at 14 million, that is going to limit him long-term to some degree, won't you admit?

Hopefully Maggs and Loaiza can be re-signed, because there aren't any real attractive starters on the market this fall. Bullpen and starting rotation, lead-off man are key holes on this team.

MarkEdward
04-19-2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I think Beane has done a great job evaluating pitching, but not so great a job evaluating offensive players. Look at their lineup now - it really isn't that good.

Recent offenses under Beane:
1999: Fourth in runs scored in the AL (893)
2000: Third in runs scored in the AL (947)
2001: Fourth in runs scored in the AL (884)
2002: Eighth in runs scored in the AL (800)
2003: Ninth in runs scored in the AL (768)

Remember, the Oakland Coliseum has been one of the best pitcher's parks in baseball for the past oh, forty years. With this in mind, I think he's done a fine job putting together decent offenses.

Also, if you've been following the A's at all for the past couple of years, you'd have seen that they've started to become more of a defense-oriented team. That would explain starting Ellis at second base over a better hitter, signing Chris Singleton last year and trading for Mark Kotsay this year.

FWIW, I don't see how anyone can argue that Beane has been much worse than tool-friendly GMs like Brian Sebean and John Schuerholz over the past five years. Surely we can all agree that he has been at equal to them in terms of building a competitive team, right?

Randar68
04-19-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Recent offenses under Beane:
1999: Fourth in runs scored in the AL (893)
2000: Third in runs scored in the AL (947)
2001: Fourth in runs scored in the AL (884)
2002: Eighth in runs scored in the AL (800)
2003: Ninth in runs scored in the AL (768)

Remember, the Oakland Coliseum has been one of the best pitcher's parks in baseball for the past oh, forty years. With this in mind, I think he's done a fine job putting together decent offenses.

Also, if you've been following the A's at all for the past couple of years, you'd have seen that they've started to become more of a defense-oriented team. That would explain starting Ellis at second base over a better hitter, signing Chris Singleton last year and trading for Mark Kotsay this year.

FWIW, I don't see how anyone can argue that Beane has been much worse than tool-friendly GMs like Brian Sebean and John Schuerholz over the past five years. Surely we can all agree that he has been at equal to them in terms of building a competitive team, right?

Nobody is saying he's gone a terrible job, Mark. This absolute god-like stature and infallibility some stat-heads have expressed is absolute baloney. When he makes a bad move, it's "bad-luck", a good move and he's a genius. KW makes a good move, and it's "incredible luck", and any bad move just shows how terrible he is. The infatuation with the stats portion of it is really pretty understandable, the over-emphasis is where it get's hard-to-swallow.

Some here sound as if they're starting their own religion based off the book "Moneyball" and Billy Beane rose from the dead to lead forth a great revival of the human spirit...

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
That's an ownership issue. KW is just repeating what his superior want the public message to be. How many times have we seen him do things creatively trying to win within the boundaries provided by JR. He got Alomar, Carl Everett and Sullivan without taking on any real payroll. I don't see this Beane love-affair. It's pretty silly if you ask me. Their payroll hasn't exactly been 20 million. Oakland's payroll is within 10 million of the Sox. They have bullpen issues, they have real problems with holes in their lineup. What is so freaking god-like about that?

Where Kenny is going to eventually be judged, IMO, is going to be by what he does over the next 2 years. He's got everyone but Frank off the payroll, essentially. Loaiza, Konerko, Koch, Valentin, that's 25+ million for next year alone. The fans demand he resign Maggs, but at 14 million, that is going to limit him long-term to some degree, won't you admit?

Hopefully Maggs and Loaiza can be re-signed, because there aren't any real attractive starters on the market this fall. Bullpen and starting rotation, lead-off man are key holes on this team.

I think Alomar hurt the team more then he helps it last year.

In terms of Marginal dollars/Marginal Victories, the A's have spanked everyone.

It is easy to see why people like Beane, he wins. Why isnít Kenny judge by what he has done since he took over?

jabrch
04-19-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Nobody is saying he's gone a terrible job, Mark. This absolute god-like stature and infallibility some stat-heads have expressed is absolute baloney. When he makes a bad move, it's "bad-luck", a good move and he's a genius. KW makes a good move, and it's "incredible luck", and any bad move just shows how terrible he is. The infatuation with the stats portion of it is really pretty understandable, the over-emphasis is where it get's hard-to-swallow.

Some here sound as if they're starting their own religion based off the book "Moneyball" and Billy Beane rose from the dead to lead forth a great revival of the human spirit...


EXACTLY

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Nobody is saying he's gone a terrible job, Mark. This absolute god-like stature and infallibility some stat-heads have expressed is absolute baloney. When he makes a bad move, it's "bad-luck", a good move and he's a genius. KW makes a good move, and it's "incredible luck", and any bad move just shows how terrible he is. The infatuation with the stats portion of it is really pretty understandable, the over-emphasis is where it get's hard-to-swallow.

Some here sound as if they're starting their own religion based off the book "Moneyball" and Billy Beane rose from the dead to lead forth a great revival of the human spirit...

It isn't God like, it is he came in and started to look at thing in different ways. This gave him a major competitive advantage. The fact is line up all the GMs, and who would you pick to lead your team? I would go with Beane.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I think Alomar hurt the team more then he helps it last year.

In terms of Marginal dollars/Marginal Victories, the A's have spanked everyone.

It is easy to see why people like Beane, he wins. Why isnít Kenny judge by what he has done since he took over?

I'm sorry, but did I miss something? Who says Kenny isn't judged by what he has done up to this point? Instead of sitting on his hand like Schue did, hes been very active and tried to be creative in staying within his restraints. He's made good and bad moves. He got a deal on Frank's last contract and made a decent deal with Lee, but probably made mistakes on Koch/Konerko and some would say Valentin.

He made great moves in getting Marte, signing Flash, getting Mike Jackson, the deals last year, he gave up minimal talent to make a push without taking on payroll. He made a DEAL OF THE CENTURY in getting Colon, even if only for 1 year. A bad move in the Ritchie deal. A no-win, no-lose move with Royce. He's had some terrific drafts under his watch.

Is this thread about Kenny's track record or how he's judged? It wasn't. It's been about the deification of Billy Beane to the point where if Olivo is a future All-Star, KW just lucked into him, because Kenny really undervalued Bradford and Beane, playing by the numbers, just had bad luck in giving up Olivo.

This circular logic and irrational excuse-making for Beane because Lewis glorifies him in a book and that people apparently believe the exact details and one-sidedness of the entire piece, is really naive. It's that simple.

JasonC23
04-19-2004, 11:07 AM
Wow, it took a long time to read this whole thing, and I'm left wondering when the HOF induction ceremonies for Cotts and Olivo are being held. :smile:

OK, seriously, here is how I see things (and I'm ignoring 2004 because sample sizes are waaaaaaaay to small to say if something's changed)...

1. Olivo for Bradford: As has been pointed out, so far, this is a clear win for the A's. Bradford has been one of the best relievers in baseball (despite being a lowly set-up man) for the past 3 years, while Miguel was in the minors for 2 years, then had a clearly below-average year with the bat last year with plus defense that made him (at best) a league-average catcher. Three good years, even for a middle reliever, vs 1 league-average (at best) year, even for a catcher, = A's winner!

From here on out, though, I think the Sox win, because Olivo, by virtue of being a catcher and having the capacity to improve, will be the more valuable player. I don't know why people feel the need to project stardom for him...as has been pointed out, all he needs to do is improve to a league-average hitter, and he'll be a very valuable player.

So, again, short-term win = A's. Long-term win = Sox. Can we all just agree on this? Please?

2. Foulke for Kotch and Cotts. Let's see: A) Foulke was awesome, is awesome, and will continue to be awesome in the foreseeable future; B) Kotch has sucked, will suck, and will continue to suck in the foreseeable future. Short-term, a complete and unmitigated disaster for the Sox.

Long-term? Well, Foulke is no longer on the A's, but Kotch is still on the Sox, so it's up to Cotts. And here's the thing...his control has always been bad. Cotts has always walked way too many people, and unless he gets this under control, he will, at best, be a back end of the rotation, "please just keep up close" kind of guy.

Basically, in the short term, KW lost both of these trades...I don't think there's any argument about that, is there? Long-term, it's up to Olivo and Cotts, and the signs are mixed.

But here's a philosophical question for everyone...is it a good idea to make bad short-term trades when your team is in contention?

Randar68
04-19-2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
It isn't God like, it is he came in and started to look at thing in different ways. This gave him a major competitive advantage. The fact is line up all the GMs, and who would you pick to lead your team? I would go with Beane.

Again, what has he won? Florida won with a lower payroll and won the series... What has Beane won again?

He is looking at things in a different manner than people traditionally have in baseball. That is fantastic and I applaud him for that. His arrogant, know-everything, approach to it and his reliance on statistics is one reason why it hasn't won anything. He has drafted some TERRIFIC pitchers, but without those 3 pitchers, would he have EVER made the playoffs? I don't think so. Drafting pitching is an absolute crap-shoot, but the talent in the top half of the first round is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Some degree of luck is definitely attributable to having those 3 guys stay healthy and making it.

THAT is the statistical anomaly in all of this folks. A fact that is CLEARLY being overlooked.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by JasonC23
But here's a philosophical question for everyone...is it a good idea to make bad short-term trades when your team is in contention?

Deal from a position of redundancy or strength. Yet another thing here that the sycophants are not willing to give KW credit for while deifying Beane for doing so with Olivo.

jabrch
04-19-2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Look at his resources. Beane would love to get a Mags or a Manny, but he can't afford to. The biggest thing you need to consider about the A's is they are put together on the cheap because of budgetary reasons. Kenny complains fan don't go out so he can't get good players, Beane goes out and produces winning teams.

Oakland has a payroll that is 5mm smaller than ours this year. Not significant. Beane doesn't spend money on his hitters because his calculator and spreadsheet has told him that he can get good hitters for cheaply. So he has Hatteberg, Karros, Kotsay, Ellis, etc. He does have his Ordonez- Jermaine Dye at 11mm, right?

In a few years, when Zito (2006), Mulder (2006) and Hudson (2005) are all FAs and are worthy of 12mm deals, Beane will not field a team that is competitive inthe AL West - unless he manages to draft SPs to take the place of whichever of those guys they end up losing.

KW, for all his bashers, has done a good job for this team. He has found MLB level players who were cheap and who can perform at an all-star level. I am not talking about Matt Stairs good, or about Scott Hatteberg good, but I am talking about Esteban Loaiza. I am talking about Damaso Marte. I am talking about Miguel Olivo.

Why is Beane and his spreadsheet worshipped, while KW is so bashed? I think either method could be successful if either GM had 100mm to spend.

jabrch
04-19-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Again, what has he won? Florida won with a lower payroll and won the series... What has Beane won again?

He is looking at things in a different manner than people traditionally have in baseball. That is fantastic and I applaud him for that. His arrogant, know-everything, approach to it and his reliance on statistics is one reason why it hasn't won anything. He has drafted some TERRIFIC pitchers, but without those 3 pitchers, would he have EVER made the playoffs? I don't think so. Drafting pitching is an absolute crap-shoot, but the talent in the top half of the first round is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Some degree of luck is definitely attributable to having those 3 guys stay healthy and making it.

THAT is the statistical anomaly in all of this folks. A fact that is CLEARLY being overlooked.

DING-DING-DING- You are correct Sir!

Just wait until 2005/2006 when they are all FAs. He may be able to afford to keep one of them, at most. Then lets see how good he is? Let's see how Jeremy Brown looks? (the catcher with titties) Swisher looks decent, who knows about Kiger and Teahen. But if Beane doesn't have a bunch of great SPs coming up, Oakland is toast.

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 11:29 AM
How many times has a Kenny Williams team won 90 games in the worst division in baseball?

How many years in a row has a Beane team win 90+ in the toughest division in baseball?

I disagree Royce Clayton was a loss. The very fact got playing time and was on the roster hurt the White Sox. Trading for a bad SS in hope to trade him latter was horrible move at best.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
How many times has a Kenny Williams team won 90 games in the worst division in baseball?

How many years in a row has a Beane team win 90+ in the toughest division in baseball?

I disagree Royce Clayton was a loss. The very fact got playing time and was on the roster hurt the White Sox. Trading for a bad SS in hope to trade him latter was horrible move at best.

Backpeddling again? Please adress my point about the statistical anomaly of 3 young pitchers maturing to be near-dominant MLB pitchers at about the same time.

Until then, please refrain from further backpeddling and hyperbole.

poorme
04-19-2004, 11:35 AM
Beane is overrated in my opinion, but you can't argue with his record.

KW has not gotten the job done, simple is that.

rdivaldi
04-19-2004, 11:36 AM
Another thing is that Bradford seems to be regressing. He's been absolutely brutal this year, and was worse in 2003 than in 2002. Perhaps batters are starting to catch up with him?

JasonC23
04-19-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Deal from a position of redundancy or strength. Yet another thing here that the sycophants are not willing to give KW credit for while deifying Beane for doing so with Olivo.

I agree here. And one could certainly argue that the Sox bullpen was good enough even without Bradford or Foulke...

...except, of course, one would be wrong. :D: As pointed out earlier in this thread, Bradford was better than all but 2 Sox relievers last year. And, of course, having Foulke instead of Kotch last year would have won the division for the Sox.

I don't understand why making a short-term trade (like Foulke for Kotch) that is so immediately bad that it costs your team the division title is OK just because one of the prospects included might someday be good. As for Bradford for Olivo, it didn't immediately hurt the Sox as much as it could have because they had no idea what they had in Bradford...but, then again, doesn't that say something?

I guess what it all comes down to for me is that every October, I see the A's playing, while I lament yet another wasted year for the Sox. Am I to believe that Billy Beane is not at all responsible for that, and that KW is an innocent victim in all of this?

MarkEdward
04-19-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Again, what has he won? Florida won with a lower payroll and won the series... What has Beane won again?

Be fair, The A's have won three division titles in arguably the best division in baseball, and they've won 85+ games per season since 1999. You can't point to Beane's overall winning percentage and say that he hasn't done anything, because he has built a very good ball club over the past several years.

He is looking at things in a different manner than people traditionally have in baseball. That is fantastic and I applaud him for that. His arrogant, know-everything, approach to it and his reliance on statistics is one reason why it hasn't won anything.

Is John Schueuholz's heavy reliance on tools and scouts the reason he's only one one World Series title with the Braves in 12 chances?

Once again, it's very hard to argue that Beane hasn't won *anything*, because he certainly has.

He has drafted some TERRIFIC pitchers, but without those 3 pitchers, would he have EVER made the playoffs?

Maybe not. However, you're being extremely unfair to Beane here. What GM, if you take away his three best players over a given amount of time, actually would succeed? Without Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux, would the Braves have done anything for the past decade? Without Beckett, Willis, and Penny, would the Marlins have won the World Series in 2003? Without Lackey, Percival, and Washburn, would the Angels have won the World Series in 2002?

I don't think so. Drafting pitching is an absolute crap-shoot, but the talent in the top half of the first round is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Some degree of luck is definitely attributable to having those 3 guys stay healthy and making it.

I would agree that there is some degree of luck attributed to keeping pitchers healthy. However, I also believe that Beane and especially Rick Peterson have done an excellent job in keeping their pitchers healthy. In fact, without really studying the issue, has any team done a better job than the A's in keeping pitchers healthy?

In hindsight, I think Rick Peterson will be viewed as one of the most essential elements to the A's run of success. Neither Zito, Mulder, nor Hudson have had a serious arm injury in all of their years in the A's organization. Current pitching prospects Joe Blanton, Mike Wood, Rich Harden, and Justin Duchscherer have no major injuries to speak of. Now, one can attribute all of these healthy pitchers to luck, but I think Beane and Peterson have developed a rather successful method in keeping their pitchers healthy.

JasonC23
04-19-2004, 11:39 AM
OK, while I was typing, a couple more posts appeared that I have to address...

So, KW finding Marte and Loiza means he's good, but Beane and company developing the Big 3 means he's lucky?

Funny, you guys get all upset when "Beane worshippers" use the reverse argument...

Randar68
04-19-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by JasonC23
I agree here. And one could certainly argue that the Sox bullpen was good enough even without Bradford or Foulke...

...except, of course, one would be wrong. :D: As pointed out earlier in this thread, Bradford was better than all but 2 Sox relievers last year. And, of course, having Foulke instead of Kotch last year would have won the division for the Sox.

Agree with the Koch/Foulke point, but pointing to last year as the big difference maker in the Bradford deal is to point to the purported value Bradford would have had to the Sox 2+ years after the deal was made, no? How was Kenny to know he'd have limited RH'ed bullpen help at that point 2 years later? The organization was stocked with high-level RH'ers.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by JasonC23
OK, while I was typing, a couple more posts appeared that I have to address...

So, KW finding Marte and Loiza means he's good, but Beane and company developing the Big 3 means he's lucky?

Funny, you guys get all upset when "Beane worshippers" use the reverse argument...

These were 3 players he drafted from College that all matured at the same time. It's not necessarily luck, but it is CLEARLY a statistical anomaly. You'd be a poor excuse for a stat-head if you're unwilling to admit that. GREAT draft picks, but the fact they all developed at the same time and all stayed healthy is rare to say the least.

jabrch
04-19-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by JasonC23
OK, while I was typing, a couple more posts appeared that I have to address...

So, KW finding Marte and Loiza means he's good, but Beane and company developing the Big 3 means he's lucky?

Funny, you guys get all upset when "Beane worshippers" use the reverse argument...


I never said that Beane was LUCKY. I just said that his entire team was built around those 3 SPs. Without them, the team is not close to competitive. All his spreadsheets and calculations don't make his offense good enough to win without Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Harden, Duchscherer, Blanton, etc. don't project out to be close.

Both systems could work if given enough money to make them work. But Beane screwed the pooch on the Olivo deal. And having to acquire Damian Miller is essentially admitting that. Bradford meanwhile, isn't the godlike creature that Beane/Lewis say. Kasmir looks like a stud, etc. etc. I just don't know why we are so quick to bash our GM who has done a fairly good job with limited resources, while so many people here have, as someone else said, founded a religion based on Beane's self-promoting hype in Lewis' book.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Maybe not. However, you're being extremely unfair to Beane here. What GM, if you take away his three best players over a given amount of time, actually would succeed? Without Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux, would the Braves have done anything for the past decade? Without Beckett, Willis, and Penny, would the Marlins have won the World Series in 2003? Without Lackey, Percival, and Washburn, would the Angels have won the World Series in 2002?


Outside of the move of drafting those three, what move has Beane made which was so key and golden? It alone has been the foundation for these winning seasons. He has been able to field a fantastic regular-season team around them. You're twisting my words saying I want to compare him minus those three players. I'm saying that he hasn't made any terrific moves at all outside of those three. He has made some good moves for the long haul by getting extra draft picks and making some low-risk low-reward picks out of them.

Originally posted by MarkEdward
I would agree that there is some degree of luck attributed to keeping pitchers healthy. However, I also believe that Beane and especially Rick Peterson have done an excellent job in keeping their pitchers healthy. In fact, without really studying the issue, has any team done a better job than the A's in keeping pitchers healthy?

In hindsight, I think Rick Peterson will be viewed as one of the most essential elements to the A's run of success. Neither Zito, Mulder, nor Hudson have had a serious arm injury in all of their years in the A's organization. Current pitching prospects Joe Blanton, Mike Wood, Rich Harden, and Justin Duchscherer have no major injuries to speak of. Now, one can attribute all of these healthy pitchers to luck, but I think Beane and Peterson have developed a rather successful method in keeping their pitchers healthy.

It's an absolute crap-shoot and it is a long-term issue. Every organization fights pitching injuries. What Beane has done is to shy away from HS pitchers and draft college pitchers, because they are closer to the majors and many have already passed the most high-risk time in their careers. In the long run, IMO, this is a low-reward strategy. He made terrific picks with Zito/Mulder/Hudson, but to be arrogant or naive enough to believe he will have that kind of good fortune continually is silly.

poorme
04-19-2004, 12:00 PM
I don't think he drafted Hudson.

JasonC23
04-19-2004, 12:03 PM
Sure, there's some luck involved. On the other hand, Loiza being that good was luck, too. My main point is not that all KW does right is luck and that all Beane does right is design, or vice versa. You're right to be annoyed when "stat-heads" make that argument, but understand that we have every right to be annoyed when all we hear is how lucky Beane is to have the Big 3 because without them he'd be nothing. That's just as ridiculous, if not more so, as saying any good KW moves are luck.

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
These were 3 players he drafted from College that all matured at the same time. It's not necessarily luck, but it is CLEARLY a statistical anomaly. You'd be a poor excuse for a stat-head if you're unwilling to admit that. GREAT draft picks, but the fact they all developed at the same time and all stayed healthy is rare to say the least.

Yes it is a anomaly, but did you ever stop to think the system created it. That it wasn't caused by random chance? I just think tool heads, have such a superiority complex then when ever someone comes up with a new great idea which may challenge them for the king of the hill, they need to negate and bash it what ever terms they can. You are arguing that Kenny is as good as Beane, which based on their teams production is just a ridiculous argument.

jabrch
04-19-2004, 12:08 PM
:tomatoaward :tomatoaward

I can't believe this drew 2 Tomatoes!

JasonC23
04-19-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
But Beane screwed the pooch on the Olivo deal. And having to acquire Damian Miller is essentially admitting that.

But Rander just told me that saying Bradford would have helped the 2003 Sox is not relevant because it was 3 years after the deal. So, the A's being stuck with Miller is not relevant because it's 3 years after the deal. :cool:

But in all seriousness, come on, really, screwed the pooch??? The A's got what they wanted, and for 3 years, they've gotten the better of the deal. The Sox have gotten the better of the deal for 0 years. If that's screwing the pooch, what's trading Foulke for Kotch?

JasonC23
04-19-2004, 12:13 PM
OK, I'll stop now, because all I'm doing is fanning the flames. Here's my final point...

KW has yet to be the GM of a team that made the playoffs. Beane's have made the playoffs 4 of his 5 years as GM.

KW's best team won 86 games. Beane's worst team won 87.

Until any of this changes, I find any debate about how KW's equal to or better than Billy Beane incredibly stupid.

maurice
04-19-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Yes it is a anomaly, but did you ever stop to think the system created it.

According to Moneyball, Beane's system wasn't in place until well after those players were drafted. The book is clear that the A's scouting staff was dominated by "tool-heads" at that time. The fact that Lewis doesn't recognize the implications of this concession is one of the book's major limitations, IMO.

Beane is good but (consistent with my book review at the time) Lewis' praise is WAY over the top.

FarWestChicago
04-19-2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I think Alomar hurt the team more then he helps it last year.

In terms of Marginal dollars/Marginal Victories, the A's have spanked everyone.

It is easy to see why people like Beane, he wins. Why isnít Kenny judge by what he has done since he took over? There is a HUGE difference between saying he's a good GM and believing he can walk on water and raise the dead. That's the simple point some of us are trying to make and some of you are missing.

FarWestChicago
04-19-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Until any of this changes, I find any debate about how KW's equal to or better than Billy Beane incredibly stupid. Ummmm, you're totally missing the point. What we are debating is whether Beane, and by extension his worshippers, will remain dead after death or will rise and walk among the living again. I think he and his followers will indeed push up daisies when their time comes. :D:

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Yes it is a anomaly, but did you ever stop to think the system created it. That it wasn't caused by random chance? I just think tool heads, have such a superiority complex then when ever someone comes up with a new great idea which may challenge them for the king of the hill, they need to negate and bash it what ever terms they can. You are arguing that Kenny is as good as Beane, which based on their teams production is just a ridiculous argument.

Superiority??? *****! I LOVE STATS! I'm a freaking engineer for crying out loud!

My point is stats are a very small part of the story. Those big 3 are the very reason they have been good the past 3-4 years. There has been little if any evidence to this point that drafting only college players and such is the right way to go. I love that Reed is a great hitter thus far. I do think he's better than the 25th best in the majors that BA rates him, but realistically, he ain't a superstar. Just an example.

I have yet to hear someone point to these glorious moves Beane hass made outside of those big 3 pitchers. Surely a GM as holy as Beane has multitudes of miraculous moves to stand upon, right?


Tools trump stats almost 100% of the time if you have the right scouting staffs and management team. Robert Valido didn't come from nowhere. The Sox had him rated higher than most any other team because their South Florida scout is probably one of the best scouts in all of baseball.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Your logic is flawed from the outset then,by assuming the great Billy Beane could mis-evaluate his own talent.The truth is he does it all the time,anytime you use stats over tools to judge young players you are bound to make mistakes.Miguel Olivo and Neal Cotts are prime examples.

Originally posted by rahulsekhar
2 things:
1)Maybe other GMs didn't underrate him, but weren't in position to offer as proven a player back, also, maybe Beane overrated Bradford (relative to Olivo)
2)Maybe all other GMs did underrate Olivo. That happens all the time with the most glaring examples being in the draft. Any stud player drafted in the 3d or later has pretty much been underrated by all remaining GMs, no? Similarly, in any trade where one gets a prospect who turns out to be a stud, all other GMs must have underrated him because if they thought he'd be a stud tey'd trade for him.

Originally posted by jabrch
Daver, the great Billy Beane NEVER mis-evaluates talent. His calculator and his spreadsheet are infallable. Tools are not relevant compared to stats.

Meanwhile, KW deserves to be insulted for every deal he makes. He is NEVER right. (Loaiza, Shoenweiss, Olivo, Cotts, etc.)

I think you guys misunderstood me. What I intended to say was you could argue Beane mis-evaluated his own talent because evaluating talent is difficult NOT you could argue Beane mis-evaluated his own talent but it is difficult to argue Beane makes mistakes.

It seems unlikely to me that of the other 29 GMs in baseball no one was able to offer another prospect or a major league calliber player for a great catching prospect.

As far as every GM overlooking a player in the draft I think it is more rare than you think. Most of the time that stud players slip these days it is because of signability. Also, there are huge differences between the degree to which you can evaluate players in the draft and players in the minor leagues. In the draft you're trying to evaluate players from different degrees of difficulty in high school, community college, and collge. There are an unlimited number of players. There are only four levels of the minor leagues plus short seasons so it is much easier to determine a players ability. Ussually if a stud drops too far in the draft as soon as he plays minor league ball clubs realize how good he actually is, ie Buehrle was immediately successful in the minors and reached the majors at 21. Olivo had already been in the minors for two seasons when we drafted him so opposing GMs had seen a ton of him in comparison to obscure high school players in the draft.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
Sorry, but that logic still doesn't make much sense either. You say just because a player has had more success at a higher level, he's more likely to, or has a better chance to succeed in the majors. Well, take for example Brian Anderson of the White Sox. He's a young prospect playing in A-Ball. Well, Ross Gload is also a good player, who posted a 315+ Average last year with solid numbers in the minors, in AAA. Now, Ross Gload is still fairly young, even though Anderson is obviously younger. Now, say that Gload and Anderson are on different teams. Does a GM make a trade of Gload for Anderson just because Gload has put up good numbers at AAA while Anderson hasn't gotten to that level yet? No.

Why can't we just agree that the trade is a winner for both teams? Oakland got what they needed in a solid middle reliever, and we got what we needed in a potential All-Star catcher with a gun behind home plate.

First of all, I agreed the trade was a winner for both teams and that I think the Sox will probably benefit the most in the long run several pages ago. From the getgo I've been saying my anger over the trade is how poorly the organization treated and evaluated Bradford's ability.

As far as your argument here, you've completely eliminated age and performance from the equation. Obviously if you isolate the level of competition and ignore all other factors my logic won't make any sense. You have to look at the fact that Gload was in his late 20s in AAA last season while Bradford reached AAA at 24 I believe and immediately performed well. If you reach the high minors at a young age and perform well then you're a great shot to make the big leagues. If you don't perform well until you're 28 then its probably not a good sign that it took you so long to learn the league.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
As far as every GM overlooking a player in the draft I think it is more rare than you think. Most of the time that stud players slip these days it is because of signability.

WOW! Talk about a gross over-simplification, jeremy. This is ludicrous. How did Ryan Sweeney slip to the Sox in round 2? I'll tell you one thing. It wasn't signability. How about Valido? What's the excuse there? There are so many players each draft and only so many scouts for each team. the couple of times a certain scout sees a guy play, he has a nagging injury, he goes 0-4 looking bad, he gives up 8 runs on a day he just doesn't have it... etc etc etc. I don't know how you think this all works, but I don't think you have a very good grasp of it.




Originally posted by jeremyb1
Ussually if a stud drops too far in the draft as soon as he plays minor league ball clubs realize how good he actually is, ie Buehrle was immediately successful in the minors and reached the majors at 21. Olivo had already been in the minors for two seasons when we drafted him so opposing GMs had seen a ton of him in comparison to obscure high school players in the draft.

How many times can anyone explain this to you? Catchers, with the rare exception every 10-20 years or so of a Joe Mauer, catchers develop later, particularly their offensive games. This is EXACTLY why tools are the most important factor in evaluating players. Olivo has a quick bat and strong hands. You add that to his defensive abilities which have been there since the day the Sox acquired him, and you have yourself a very valuable catching prospect.

I guess he wasn't hitting at a high enough clip for Billy's spreadsheet to spit out the fact that he was valuable?

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 03:05 PM
Alright I don't have time to individually address posts because suddenly there's an additional three pages here. Here are some various thoughts though:

1. I see a lot of people complaining about how "statheads" assume Beane is infallible and use the logic that if he makes good moves its because he's smart and if he makes bad moves its because he's unlucky. This is making the debate incredibly superficial. You may feel that is the type of logic people are using but not one has argued in response to "But what about trading Bradford for Olivo" by merely saying "Oh, that was just bad luck." I've typed post after post after post after post explaining the information present at the time of the deal, players' market values, and the probability each player would succeed at the time of the trade. If people are giving reasons why certain deals involved luck (which does exists in this world) or relied on certain information then they're not simply saying Beane is right because he is Beane. They're exmplaining why. If you can't provide a counter argument that's not because the "statheads" are twisting arguments, using circular logic, etc.

2. If you want an example of actual circular logic this is it: statistics do a poor job of indicating which players are bad, you can tell this because Beane's stats offense has netted Miller, Hatteburg, and Kotsay who are bad because onlyl stats say they have value. This line of reasoning was used at least twice in the last few pages.

3. Relying on World Series titles to evaluate whether teams are successful or not is really, really stupid. Do people honestly believe you can build a team that wins 100 games but the only true test of whether or not they're good is whether or not they can win 5 and 7 game series? Quick, which gives you a better idea of ability 162 games or 7? Have the Sox ever lost a season series to a team they were better than? Were the Tigers a better team that us last season? None of the anti-"stathead" camp has touched any of these arguments.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
WOW! Talk about a gross over-simplification, jeremy. This is ludicrous. How did Ryan Sweeney slip to the Sox in round 2? I'll tell you one thing. It wasn't signability. How about Valido? What's the excuse there? There are so many players each draft and only so many scouts for each team. the couple of times a certain scout sees a guy play, he has a nagging injury, he goes 0-4 looking bad, he gives up 8 runs on a day he just doesn't have it... etc etc etc. I don't know how you think this all works, but I don't think you have a very good grasp of it.

How many times can anyone explain this to you? Catchers, with the rare exception every 10-20 years or so of a Joe Mauer, catchers develop later, particularly their offensive games. This is EXACTLY why tools are the most important factor in evaluating players. Olivo has a quick bat and strong hands. You add that to his defensive abilities which have been there since the day the Sox acquired him, and you have yourself a very valuable catching prospect.

I guess he wasn't hitting at a high enough clip for Billy's spreadsheet to spit out the fact that he was valuable?

Those players didn't really slip though. I mean how many spots did Sweeney slip? 15 or 20? That's not that many. Every GM still could've felt he was a great player. Also, Valido and Sweeney haven't exactly established themselves as all-stars. However, none of this really matters. My entire argument was that there's no comparison whatsoever between evaluating pro players with minor league track records and amateur players from hundreds of different levels of competition. Do you agree with me then, that Valido and Sweeney were rated differently by GMs because it is difficult to rate amateur players but that this would not happen with Olivo? If so then we're in agreement, the degree to which GMs differ in opinion in the amateur draft has absolutely no application to the degree to which they'd disagree about a player with two years minor league service time, right?

Catchers often develop late IF they do develop an offensive game. There are tons of catching prospects in baseball every year. How many good offensive catchers are there in the game right now? 3? Olivo's tools didn't have the other 27 GMs in baseball that rely on tools chasing after him though, right?

Randar68
04-19-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Alright I don't have time to individually address posts because suddenly there's an additional three pages here. Here are some various thoughts though:

1. I see a lot of people complaining about how "statheads" assume Beane is infallible and use the logic that if he makes good moves its because he's smart and if he makes bad moves its because he's unlucky. This is making the debate incredibly superficial. You may feel that is the type of logic people are using but not one has argued in response to "But what about trading Bradford for Olivo" by merely saying "Oh, that was just bad luck." I've typed post after post after post after post explaining the information present at the time of the deal, players' market values, and the probability each player would succeed at the time of the trade. If people are giving reasons why certain deals involved luck (which does exists in this world) or relied on certain information then they're not simply saying Beane is right because he is Beane. They're explaining why. If you can't provide a counter argument that's not because the "statheads" are twisting arguments, using circular logic, etc.

The problem with your argument is the reasoning you're willing to use to qualify KW's deal as "luck" is the same reason you'd have to explain Beane's move had there not been a very slanted book written about it. You apparently believe everything Lewis has written as gospel, which makes your points and perspective on it even less valid or believable.



Originally posted by jeremyb1
2. If you want an example of actual circular logic this is it: statistics do a poor job of indicating which players are bad, you can tell this because Beane's stats offense has netted Miller, Hatteburg, and Kotsay who are bad because onlyl stats say they have value. This line of reasoning was used at least twice in the last few pages.

Are you still unwilling to admit your own repeated line of circular logic, stating because Beane really liked Bradford, and the working assumption here based primarily on Lewis' book, says KW undervalued him, then Beane saw something no other GM saw. Whereas, in your line of reasoning, KW lucked into Olivo because had he really been a talent, other GM's would have been after him.

Can you seen how ridiculous that sounds? You can try to project it to other people, but look in the mirror here, Jeremy.


Originally posted by jeremyb1
3. Relying on World Series titles to evaluate whether teams are successful or not is really, really stupid. Do people honestly believe you can build a team that wins 100 games but the only true test of whether or not they're good is whether or not they can win 5 and 7 game series? Quick, which gives you a better idea of ability 162 games or 7? Have the Sox ever lost a season series to a team they were better than? Were the Tigers a better team that us last season? None of the anti-"stathead" camp has touched any of these arguments.

How about this, then, jeremy. He hasn't won a PLAYOFF SERIES in 4 tries. His teams are built for the long-haul-season, but are not overly competitive in a short-series. How are you going to spin this as being an invalid point?

Randar68
04-19-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Those players didn't really slip though. I mean how many spots did Sweeney slip? 15 or 20? That's not that many. Every GM still could've felt he was a great player. Also, Valido and Sweeney haven't exactly established themselves as all-stars. However, none of this really matters. My entire argument was that there's no comparison whatsoever between evaluating pro players with minor league track records and amateur players from hundreds of different levels of competition. Do you agree with me then, that Valido and Sweeney were rated differently by GMs because it is difficult to rate amateur players but that this would not happen with Olivo? If so then we're in agreement, the degree to which GMs differ in opinion in the amateur draft has absolutely no application to the degree to which they'd disagree about a player with two years minor league service time, right?

Sweeney was a sure-fire first-round pick 1 month before the draft. He wasn't taken with the 3rd or 4th picks of teams like the A's and went not only through the sandwich picks, but also to the middle of the second round.

Are you unable to comprehend the complexities of the catching position? Olivo was a very fleet-of-foot and strong-armed catcher with all the defensive tools except the mental aspect, and still very young to boot. Despite what you may have yourself believing, this is not an everyday commodity. I don't see why it is so hard for you to admit the Sox scouting staff and KW saw something in Olivo they liked and wanted to try to get him to fill their gaping catching hole within the organization. There is absolutely ZERO evidence, statistical or otherwise, other than your silly conjecture, that it is anything other than the case of the Sox finding a player they liked and thought could be a very good catcher and making a deal from strength for him.

If you wish to call all scouting "luck", that's fine. Personally, I find statistics to be a useful tool, but it is absolutely not a substitution for good scouting staffs or good eyes for talent. There is no substitution for that. By taking the human element out and being able to say any failure not in line with a trend as being "bad luck", all you're doing is removing the human error from the equation and replacing it with a non-human error. I find the type of approach Beane has applied to be an approach that essentially removes good scouts from he equation because of the bad ones. Not being able to trust or sit in the stands every game with these scouts, and Beane's inherent lack of trust of them, is one of the reasons, IMO, he has tried to go to these statistical models. Not trusting the scouts and trying to replace them with numbers and stats is not going to be a successful long-term strategy, I'll guarantee you that right now. Instead of replacing scouts he didn't trust or scouts he didn't think would buy into his philosophy with scouts he trusted, he's trying to replace them altogether.



Originally posted by jeremyb1
Catchers often develop late IF they do develop an offensive game. There are tons of catching prospects in baseball every year. How many good offensive catchers are there in the game right now? 3? Olivo's tools didn't have the other 27 GMs in baseball that rely on tools chasing after him though, right?

And what information do you have to say this so definitively? Because KW ended up trading for him, and he is so inept in your view, that nobody else must have wanted Olivo? They traded for him as a very raw player in A-ball. Not many people are willing to give up AAA players for those kinds of guys even as catchers. He had a hard time handling a pitching staff and had been inconsistent at best at the plate. The tools were always there, how coach-able was he?

Your whole argument is based off a bunch of really questionable assumptions.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
The problem with your argument is the reasoning you're willing to use to qualify KW's deal as "luck" is the same reason you'd have to explain Beane's move had there not been a very slanted book written about it. You apparently believe everything Lewis has written as gospel, which makes your points and perspective on it even less valid or believable.

Are you still unwilling to admit your own repeated line of circular logic, stating because Beane really liked Bradford, and the working assumption here based primarily on Lewis' book, says KW undervalued him, then Beane saw something no other GM saw. Whereas, in your line of reasoning, KW lucked into Olivo because had he really been a talent, other GM's would have been after him.

Can you seen how ridiculous that sounds? You can try to project it to other people, but look in the mirror here, Jeremy.

How about this, then, jeremy. He hasn't won a PLAYOFF SERIES in 4 tries. His teams are built for the long-haul-season, but are not overly competitive in a short-series. How are you going to spin this as being an invalid point?

See the problem here is you're assuming that the only reason I think Bradford is good is because Billy Beane though so. That's absolutely not true. The use of performance to evaluate players doesn't start and end with Billy Beane. The most revolutionary thinker was Bill James who inspired Sandy Alderson whose protege with the A's was Billy Beane. There are numerous people that use performance out there that don't agree on every decision such as James, the writers at Baseball Prospectus and Baseball Primer, and now Riccardi, Epstein, and DePodesta.

Its ridiculous to say that 29 GMs passing on Bradford is the same as 29 GMs passing on Olivo because at the time of the trade Beane was more or less the only GM relying heavily on performance in the entire league!!! DePodesta, Epstein, and Riccardi were not yet hired. Who else was going to pick up Bradford if all the other GMs were biased towards tools and scouting? By comparison you yourself are arguing that Olivo's strength was tools and at the time of the Bradford deal every other GM in baseball other than Beane was focusing on tools. They are actually opposite situations.

4 series still isn't exactly a huge sample size Randar. If an identical team (keep in mind Beane hasn't had an indentical team every season) lost 40 playoff series, I'd take it a lot more serious. However, the same way I don't take an 0 for 4 day as a disaster or even a sustained slump like Crede's to start this season, I don' think 4 series is a huge trend. If one can be flukish then so can four. Regardless, another post said there are no established characteristics of teams that succeed in the playoffs. You've completely skipped this argument yet continued to assume that there are characteristics which allow teams to succeed in the playoffs beyond a shadow of a doubt! I'd love to know, what are these characteristics and how do you know they pan out.

kermittheefrog
04-19-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
See the problem here is you're assuming that the only reason I think Bradford is good is because Billy Beane though so. That's absolutely not true. The use of performance to evaluate players doesn't start and end with Billy Beane. The most revolutionary thinker was Bill James who inspired Sandy Alderson whose protege with the A's was Billy Beane. There are numerous people that use performance out there that don't agree on every decision such as James, the writers at Baseball Prospectus and Baseball Primer, and now Riccardi, Epstein, and DePodesta.

I hope most people are still reading this because I'm going to jump in and say something important. When talking about GM's who are strongly behind objective player evaluation everyone forgets Brian Cashman. Sure Cashman has a lot more money to work with than Billy Beane but the guy still makes the right signings. He builds teams that get on base and hit home runs. He doesn't chase after overvalued guys like some big budget teams of recent memory. Most notably, the Rangers, Dodgers and Orioles. You never see Cashman sign a guy that never walks or a pitcher who won 20 games because he had great run support during a mediocre season. Cashman doesn't sign one year wonders, guys who get big deals after their best seasons.

Brian Cashman is a good GM and Brian Cashman has told the press he looks for hitters with high on base percentages. I understand even Kenny Williams has thrown around that he likes high OBP players but Cashman actually has a record to back it up. Cashman believes in the stuff and has a lot of playoff success to his credit. He just happens to be a lot more low profile than guys like Billy Beane and Theo Eipstein. He keeps his cards hidden a little better.

jabrch
04-19-2004, 04:07 PM
Cashman gets the best players available - that's an entirely different story when you talk about a 200,000,000 payroll than when we talk aboutthe Sox and the As in the 60mm range.

CanOfCorn
04-19-2004, 04:17 PM
I'm going to barf out a response that may or may not be in line with what is actually being argued.

I'll agree that the Olivo-Bradford deal was win-win. I would hesitate to call Olivo a five-tool player because he has only shown hints of everything. I'd give him defense, and he seems to have decent speed. He shows a possibility for having a great bat, but we'll see.

I thought the Foulke-Koch deal was terrible from the start. Koch was overworked, saw every hitter, and throws pretty much a straight fastball, like Alan Embree when he was inconsistent. Now he throws a straight fastball that's 7 mph slower.

Meanwhile, Foulke didn't seem to have a great 2002, but in reality he had a couple bad weeks that threw Manuel for a loop. He should've taken back the closer role in the second half, but Manuel didn't want to give it to him, and relied on Al Osuna. Foulke isn't Trevor Hoffman, so he's going to get in slumps occasionally when he struggles with control or timing with the changeup. But he's above-average, and more reliable than any other arm we've had in the bullpen the last few years.

I don't think Williams is the right GM for the Sox, because he gets too giddy for a team that needs homegrown talent more than ever, since Reinsdorf isn't willing to import players in bidding wars. But he's done some good things for us.

kermittheefrog
04-19-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Cashman gets the best players available - that's an entirely different story when you talk about a 200,000,000 payroll than when we talk aboutthe Sox and the As in the 60mm range.

But we have seen high salary teams go after the wrong big name players. There was a ton of money thrown around at Mike Hampton and Chan Ho Park but it was foolish. I'd say the bottom line here is you can't give me a single team buying into the sabermetric philosophy that has sunk and failed. You can argue that it has only been a few teams and thats not enough to make a sound conclusion but those few teams have been astoundingly successful.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
See the problem here is you're assuming that the only reason I think Bradford is good is because Billy Beane though so. That's absolutely not true. The use of performance to evaluate players doesn't start and end with Billy Beane. The most revolutionary thinker was Bill James who inspired Sandy Alderson whose protege with the A's was Billy Beane. There are numerous people that use performance out there that don't agree on every decision such as James, the writers at Baseball Prospectus and Baseball Primer, and now Riccardi, Epstein, and DePodesta.

I never said nor implied that as your reasoning in the very least, Jeremy, don't put words in my mouth. Bradford has been a valuable asset to the A's since then, and was a capable pitcher when the Sox had him along with their very crowded RH'ed bullpen at the time.

Originally posted by jeremyb1
Its ridiculous to say that 29 GMs passing on Bradford is the same as 29 GMs passing on Olivo because at the time of the trade Beane was more or less the only GM relying heavily on performance in the entire league!!! DePodesta, Epstein, and Riccardi were not yet hired. Who else was going to pick up Bradford if all the other GMs were biased towards tools and scouting? By comparison you yourself are arguing that Olivo's strength was tools and at the time of the Bradford deal every other GM in baseball other than Beane was focusing on tools. They are actually opposite situations.

HUH!? Talk about double-standard. So, the Sox did a great job scouting and targeting Olivo, but IYO, that's simply not the case, because others should have seen it first because KW is inept or not-original?

Whereas, Beane's/Jame's revolutionary model had Bradford as a stud and no other team could have recognized it?

Seems awfully silly to assume that KW wasn't sitting on the other end of the line, throwing out the name Olivo to see if Beane bites on someone the Sox REALLY want, but to hear Lewis tell it as Beane thinking he's giving up a 200 pound trashcan behind the plate for a stud.




Originally posted by jeremyb1
4 series still isn't exactly a huge sample size Randar. If an identical team (keep in mind Beane hasn't had an indentical team every season) lost 40 playoff series, I'd take it a lot more serious. However, the same way I don't take an 0 for 4 day as a disaster or even a sustained slump like Crede's to start this season, I don' think 4 series is a huge trend. If one can be flukish then so can four. Regardless, another post said there are no established characteristics of teams that succeed in the playoffs. You've completely skipped this argument yet continued to assume that there are characteristics which allow teams to succeed in the playoffs beyond a shadow of a doubt! I'd love to know, what are these characteristics and how do you know they pan out.

4 is statistically relevant here, considering the events are not completely independent if you consider that large portions of each team were related or part of the others...

If you consider them independent, can you flip a coin and get heads 4 times in a row? Certainly can, 1/16th of the time, 4-of-4 flips will be heads.




I think I'm through banging my head against this wall, jeremy. You can go around and around and around all day long, but you're not making a concise or clear point without applying a double standard or circular logic. Continually, you are making random assumptions that are just building one upon the next, that simply are not adding up to a coherent argument. Statistics are devoid of value without reason and method, things you are conveniently ignoring.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I hope most people are still reading this because I'm going to jump in and say something important. When talking about GM's who are strongly behind objective player evaluation everyone forgets Brian Cashman. Sure Cashman has a lot more money to work with than Billy Beane but the guy still makes the right signings. He builds teams that get on base and hit home runs. He doesn't chase after overvalued guys like some big budget teams of recent memory. Most notably, the Rangers, Dodgers and Orioles. You never see Cashman sign a guy that never walks or a pitcher who won 20 games because he had great run support during a mediocre season. Cashman doesn't sign one year wonders, guys who get big deals after their best seasons.

Brian Cashman is a good GM and Brian Cashman has told the press he looks for hitters with high on base percentages. I understand even Kenny Williams has thrown around that he likes high OBP players but Cashman actually has a record to back it up. Cashman believes in the stuff and has a lot of playoff success to his credit. He just happens to be a lot more low profile than guys like Billy Beane and Theo Eipstein. He keeps his cards hidden a little better.

I agree on Cashman, but he is simply not a stat-head in the school of Billy Beane. The Yankees spend more on scouting and signing foreign players than any other team, and that is mostly using the human element.

Where would Oakland be without the big 3 pitchers? Those 3 were admittedly drafted before Beane implemented this system, and all of their success is built upon them.

Any team which highly values OBP is going to score runs and be successful IMO. It's something that has gradually been undervalued and only in the past 2 or 3 years has it been in-vogue again. It didn't take a mathematician to figure out you need guys on base to score runs, but owners and GM's saw people coming to see HR's, and became enamored with the long ball.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Sweeney was a sure-fire first-round pick 1 month before the draft. He wasn't taken with the 3rd or 4th picks of teams like the A's and went not only through the sandwich picks, but also to the middle of the second round.

Alright but you agree with my point that evaluating minor league talent and amateur talent is not comperable.

Originally posted by Randar68
Are you unable to comprehend the complexities of the catching position? Olivo was a very fleet-of-foot and strong-armed catcher with all the defensive tools except the mental aspect, and still very young to boot. Despite what you may have yourself believing, this is not an everyday commodity.

I'm not saying its an everday commodity but I think its more common than you're letting on. The point remains that there are ussually at least 4 or 5 catchers on Baseball America's top 100 prospects list every season with defensive tools expected to develop offensively - Olivo wasn't one of them when the trade was made - and clearly when considering the lack of good all around catchers in the big leagues most of these catchers that scouts consider to be better than Olivo do not become particularly good players. Look at guys like Toby Hall, Michael Barrett, Ben Davis, and Einar Diaz. Based on tools these guys were all considered to be better than Olivo at the time he came over and yet they have not become great players.

Originally posted by Randar68
I don't see why it is so hard for you to admit the Sox scouting staff and KW saw something in Olivo they liked and wanted to try to get him to fill their gaping catching hole within the organization. There is absolutely ZERO evidence, statistical or otherwise, other than your silly conjecture, that it is anything other than the case of the Sox finding a player they liked and thought could be a very good catcher and making a deal from strength for him.

I absolutely agree with that. What I disagree with is that the organization deserves credit for Olivo become a great player because 1) he hasn't yet 2) simply because the team liked him does not mean he was expected to become a great player as compared to a mediocre one 3) that doesn't mean his value was equal to Bradford's at the time of the trade.

Originally posted by Randar68
If you wish to call all scouting "luck", that's fine. Personally, I find statistics to be a useful tool, but it is absolutely not a substitution for good scouting staffs or good eyes for talent. There is no substitution for that. By taking the human element out and being able to say any failure not in line with a trend as being "bad luck", all you're doing is removing the human error from the equation and replacing it with a non-human error. I find the type of approach Beane has applied to be an approach that essentially removes good scouts from he equation because of the bad ones. Not being able to trust or sit in the stands every game with these scouts, and Beane's inherent lack of trust of them, is one of the reasons, IMO, he has tried to go to these statistical models. Not trusting the scouts and trying to replace them with numbers and stats is not going to be a successful long-term strategy, I'll guarantee you that right now. Instead of replacing scouts he didn't trust or scouts he didn't think would buy into his philosophy with scouts he trusted, he's trying to replace them altogether.

I don't intend to call scouting "luck" or indicate that it is without merit. I happen to think scouting is important. The perception is that Beane thinks scouts are completely worthless but that's debatable. The problem is relying too heavily on scouts because scouts tend to be trained in the traditional views of baseball many of which are unsubstantiated and false. For instance scouts in the White Sox organization seemed to think that Bradford didn't thow hard enough to be a good reliever which is obviously not the case. A GM needs to take unbiased, objective information from his scouts ("he doesn't throw hard" not "he doesn't have enough gas to get out major leaguers") and integrate that into decisions. The problem isn't scouting as an idea it is some of the biases that tend to crop up in scouting and relying too heavily on scouting.

Originally posted by Randar68
And what information do you have to say this so definitively? Because KW ended up trading for him, and he is so inept in your view, that nobody else must have wanted Olivo? They traded for him as a very raw player in A-ball. Not many people are willing to give up AAA players for those kinds of guys even as catchers. He had a hard time handling a pitching staff and had been inconsistent at best at the plate. The tools were always there, how coach-able was he?

Your whole argument is based off a bunch of really questionable assumptions.

I'm basing it on the fact that I feel Beane and most all GMs can rather easily determine a players market value and Olivo was traded for a player KW and Beane stated was a back of the pen reliever in AAA. If he was valued much higher for that Beane probably would've dealt KW someone else for Bradford and included Olivo in a larger deal. I completely agree with the last part there. Olivo was a big question mark and that's why its unfair to assume KW somehow knew he'd be a superstar all along.

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

How many times can anyone explain this to you? Catchers, with the rare exception every 10-20 years or so of a Joe Mauer, catchers develop later, particularly their offensive games. This is EXACTLY why tools are the most important factor in evaluating players. Olivo has a quick bat and strong hands. You add that to his defensive abilities which have been there since the day the Sox acquired him, and you have yourself a very valuable catching prospect.

I guess he wasn't hitting at a high enough clip for Billy's spreadsheet to spit out the fact that he was valuable?

I Rod, Javy Lopez, Jore Posada, Mike P. That isn't once in 10-20 years.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I Rod, Javy Lopez, Jore Posada, Mike P. That isn't once in 10-20 years.

Thank you for making my point for me. How old were Javy or Posada when they made their first all-star game? 27? Sheeesh. Ivan Rodriguez is the only one of the 4 you mention to have EVER been anything CLOSE to a 5-tool catcher. Piazza has never been a good defensive catcher and Javy has been questionable behind the plate throughout his career.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I never said nor implied that as your reasoning in the very least, Jeremy, don't put words in my mouth. Bradford has been a valuable asset to the A's since then, and was a capable pitcher when the Sox had him along with their very crowded RH'ed bullpen at the time.

Well maybe I misunderstood but that's what I interpreted this quote to mean

"The problem with your argument is the reasoning you're willing to use to qualify KW's deal as "luck" is the same reason you'd have to explain Beane's move had there not been a very slanted book written about it. You apparently believe everything Lewis has written as gospel, which makes your points and perspective on it even less valid or believable.

To me what you were saying was that because Beane wanted Bradford and I supposedly worship Beane I think it was intelligence not luck. IE I think it was smart not on its own merits but because Beane only makes good decisions not lucky ones.

Originally posted by Randar68
HUH!? Talk about double-standard. So, the Sox did a great job scouting and targeting Olivo, but IYO, that's simply not the case, because others should have seen it first because KW is inept or not-original?

Whereas, Beane's/Jame's revolutionary model had Bradford as a stud and no other team could have recognized it?

Seems awfully silly to assume that KW wasn't sitting on the other end of the line, throwing out the name Olivo to see if Beane bites on someone the Sox REALLY want, but to hear Lewis tell it as Beane thinking he's giving up a 200 pound trashcan behind the plate for a stud.

I think there's a huge difference there. If 29 other teams are scouting Olivo and pick him out to be solid its requires a certain leap of faith that the Sox had him pegged as a superstar all along. I'm certainly willing to admit that the Sox scouting could've been better than other clubs. We could've had him as a 5 out of 10 whereas other clubs had him as a 3 out of 10. That's a testament to good scouting on our part. What I disagree with is the notion that Olivo is a superstar and KW knew he would become one all along because that means we thought he was a 9 out of 10 when everyone else thought he was a 3 out of 10 and I don't think its possible that 29 other teams were completely wrong and we were completely right.

You have to understand that there's a fundamental difference between relying on scouting and relying on performance. So I don't think its possible for KW's opinion to differ from the other GMs opinion on Olivo as it was possible for Beane's opinion on Bradford to be completely different. We're talking about two completely different perspectives here. Within the same approach your opinions can only differ so much but from different frameworks you can have much, much more variance. For instance if we're both evaluating cars based on how sporty they look our opinions will probably only differ so much. However if you're evaluting cars on appearance and I'm evaluating them on gas millage our opinions will differ much more greatly.

Originally posted by Randar68
4 is statistically relevant here, considering the events are not completely independent if you consider that large portions of each team were related or part of the others...

If you consider them independent, can you flip a coin and get heads 4 times in a row? Certainly can, 1/16th of the time, 4-of-4 flips will be heads.

Yeah that assumes it was all or nothing though. If the A's win one more game in three of those four series then they've made the playoffs. What's the A's record in those four series? 7-12? If its largely luck and we assume that any team can beat any team in the playoffs since they're all good then their expected record would be 9.5-9.5 in those games and 7-12 only deviates from that slightly. Even if it is unlikely, 1 in 16 isn't all that unlikely. People win the lottery, people get struck by lightening. Would you risk your life for a 1 in 16 chance its so unlikely? I sure wouldn't.


Originally posted by Randar68
I think I'm through banging my head against this wall, jeremy. You can go around and around and around all day long, but you're not making a concise or clear point without applying a double standard or circular logic. Continually, you are making random assumptions that are just building one upon the next, that simply are not adding up to a coherent argument. Statistics are devoid of value without reason and method, things you are conveniently ignoring.

Haha. Well your call. I'm explaining to you why I feel I'm not using circular logic, why my arguments rely on reason, why they rely on methodology. I don't know what I can do better to that. I don't feel as though everything that comes out of my mouth is completely random and biased because I am using evidence to support my claims in every case and you haven't really refuted my evidence, my support.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Alright but you agree with my point that evaluating minor league talent and amateur talent is not comperable.



I'm not saying its an everday commodity but I think its more common than you're letting on. The point remains that there are ussually at least 4 or 5 catchers on Baseball America's top 100 prospects list every season with defensive tools expected to develop offensively - Olivo wasn't one of them when the trade was made - and clearly when considering the lack of good all around catchers in the big leagues most of these catchers that scouts consider to be better than Olivo do not become particularly good players. Look at guys like Toby Hall, Michael Barrett, Ben Davis, and Einar Diaz. Based on tools these guys were all considered to be better than Olivo at the time he came over and yet they have not become great players.



I absolutely agree with that. What I disagree with is that the organization deserves credit for Olivo become a great player because 1) he hasn't yet 2) simply because the team liked him does not mean he was expected to become a great player as compared to a mediocre one 3) that doesn't mean his value was equal to Bradford's at the time of the trade.



I don't intend to call scouting "luck" or indicate that it is without merit. I happen to think scouting is important. The perception is that Beane thinks scouts are completely worthless but that's debatable. The problem is relying too heavily on scouts because scouts tend to be trained in the traditional views of baseball many of which are unsubstantiated and false. For instance scouts in the White Sox organization seemed to think that Bradford didn't thow hard enough to be a good reliever which is obviously not the case. A GM needs to take unbiased, objective information from his scouts ("he doesn't throw hard" not "he doesn't have enough gas to get out major leaguers") and integrate that into decisions. The problem isn't scouting as an idea it is some of the biases that tend to crop up in scouting and relying too heavily on scouting.



I'm basing it on the fact that I feel Beane and most all GMs can rather easily determine a players market value and Olivo was traded for a player KW and Beane stated was a back of the pen reliever in AAA. If he was valued much higher for that Beane probably would've dealt KW someone else for Bradford and included Olivo in a larger deal. I completely agree with the last part there. Olivo was a big question mark and that's why its unfair to assume KW somehow knew he'd be a superstar all along.


I'm sorry, Jeremy, but like I said, your whole argument is based off of asinine assumptions. I never said KW knew he'd be anything other than a serviceable catcher. For a releiver not many teams valued, getting a good defensive catcher is a good deal. The Sox scouts, KW, and the minor league coaching staffs should all get the credit for Olivo's development, something you are seemingly unable to do in your blind-eye view of this whole thing.

MRKARNO
04-19-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I Rod, Javy Lopez, Jore Posada, Mike P. That isn't once in 10-20 years.

Out of those 4, only Pudge really compares to Olivo. Piazza was never known for his defense. Posada and Javy weren't anything spectacular behind the plate and only IRod ever ran. Olivo might steal as many bases in his career than in the combined careers of these 4. Catchers who hit are nothing new, but catchers who hit, play awesome D and can run are unique.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Where would Oakland be without the big 3 pitchers? Those 3 were admittedly drafted before Beane implemented this system, and all of their success is built upon them.

I meant to address this earlier.

Lets hypothetically assume that Beane played no role in drafting Hudson, Mulder, and Zito which even if Grady Fuson deserves the majority of the credit is extremely unlikely. Would that mean that Beane deserves little or no credit for developing them? I certainly don't think so. He decided to keep those players instead of trading them in the numerous dealine deals for proven talent the A's have made. He hired the coaches and player development personel that helped them in the major and minor leagues. Finally, he's largely reponsible for keeping them healthy by fostering an environment in which Rick Peterson could work with James Andrews on a regular basis and implement unique training that has kept the A's pitchers healthier than any other club in baseball.

Randar68
04-19-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
because I am using evidence to support my claims in every case and you haven't really refuted my evidence, my support.

LMAO. Thank you for ending the discussion for me. Maybe you should read your own posts. Dosie-Doe! Round and Round we go!

Hondo
04-19-2004, 05:23 PM
To answer the question posed in the title thread...

I'm right here.

Dadawg_77
04-19-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Out of those 4, only Pudge really compares to Olivo. Piazza was never known for his defense. Posada and Javy weren't anything spectacular behind the plate and only IRod ever ran. Olivo might steal as many bases in his career than in the combined careers of these 4. Catchers who hit are nothing new, but catchers who hit, play awesome D and can run are unique.

Out of those four, I would rather all of them on my team then Olivo. Like I said I think people like Randar are highly overrating him.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but like I said, your whole argument is based off of asinine assumptions. I never said KW knew he'd be anything other than a serviceable catcher.

Then we agree, right? Because I certainly never said KW didn't think Olivo would be a useful player, right?

Originally posted by Randar68
For a releiver not many teams valued, getting a good defensive catcher is a good deal. The Sox scouts, KW, and the minor league coaching staffs should all get the credit for Olivo's development, something you are seemingly unable to do in your blind-eye view of this whole thing.

Too bad the Sox were included in the group of teams that didn't value Bradford, eh? As a general rule I don't think its wise to keep guys that post sub 2 ERAs in AAA in the minors and then trade them.

I absolutely agree our organization deserves a great deal of credit for Olivo's development. I just made the exact same point regarding Beane and Mulder, Zito, and Hudson in a post.

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
LMAO. Thank you for ending the discussion for me. Maybe you should read your own posts. Dosie-Doe! Round and Round we go!

Haha. Are we arguing about rhetoric or baseball here. I just wrote a long reasoned post and you're going to focus on debates about how we're debating here? Fine. I really have very little interest in talking about that.

I'd love to know your response to my argument about the differences between scouting and performance perspectives and the probability of losing in the playoffs but if you'd rather just focus on arguments about rhetoric that's your call.

MarkEdward
04-19-2004, 05:38 PM
Sorry for the late reply, Randar. Hope you're still following the thread.

Originally posted by Randar68
Outside of the move of drafting those three, what move has Beane made which was so key and golden? It alone has been the foundation for these winning seasons. He has been able to field a fantastic regular-season team around them.

Although I do agree that Mulder, Hudson, and Zito have been the core of the A's current run, I would also say that Beane has done much more than draft those three to soldify his place as a very good general manager. Among other things, he has consistently built valuable bullpens using cheap veterans (Mecir, Tam) and cast-offs (Taylor, Isringhausen, Foulke, Bradford). He's gotten great production out fourth and fifth starters throughout the years (Heredia, Lidle, Lilly, Harang, Hiljus). His offenses continue to do well despite playing in an extreme pitcher's park. He just signed one of the best players in baseball to a relatively cheap contract (Chavez). Overall, he's done a great job of finding throw-aways who are still able to produce. I've discussed the pitchers, so here are some hitters that he's been able to get without giving up much: Erubiel Durazo, David Justice, Ray Durham, Johnny Damon, Jeremy Giambi, Randy Velarde, Olmedo Saenz. While none of these players are superstars, they all contributed to the A's run of success.

You're twisting my words saying I want to compare him minus those three players. I'm saying that he hasn't made any terrific moves at all outside of those three.

But you do want to compare him to what he has done minus the Big Three! You just asked me to give you a bunch of Beane's accomplishments sans Mulder, Hudson, and Zito.

He has made some good moves for the long haul by getting extra draft picks and making some low-risk low-reward picks out of them.

Something that we should also give Beane credit for, I believe.

It's an absolute crap-shoot and it is a long-term issue. Every organization fights pitching injuries.

So, considering his rate of success in regards to keeping his pitchers healthy, don't you think that the A's have done a very good job in fighting pitcher injuries?

Also, I don't really believe pitchers' health is a crapshoot. If so, why do organizations put so much time, effort, and money in developing ways to keep their pitchers healthy?

What Beane has done is to shy away from HS pitchers and draft college pitchers, because they are closer to the majors and many have already passed the most high-risk time in their careers.

So shouldn't we give credit to Beane for this strategy, seeing as though he has had some success with it?

In the long run, IMO, this is a low-reward strategy. He made terrific picks with Zito/Mulder/Hudson, but to be arrogant or naive enough to believe he will have that kind of good fortune continually is silly.

Well, looking at some of his current pitching prospects (Blanton, Harden, Sullivan, all former college pitchers), it looks like Beane will continue to have at least some success.

Also, it's not like Beane's "arrogance" has kept him from drafting high school pitchers or toolsy players. He did draft Jeremy Bonderman, albeit not happily. He took Nick Swisher and Omar Quintanilla, who are both rated highly by scouts.

maurice
04-19-2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Out of those four, I would rather all of them on my team then Olivo.

I'd take Posada and probably I-Rod. Piazza is a liability behind the plate, but I'd take him at DH or 1B. Looking at the last couple of years of free agency, it appears that MLB GMs don't consider Lopez and Rodriguez to be hot commodities. I-Rod drew little interest and was forced to sign with what he believed to be bottom feeding teams the past two seasons. Lopez had a great 2003, but sucked hard in 2002 and 2001.

ma-gaga
04-19-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
What we are debating is whether Beane, and by extension his worshippers, will remain dead after death or will rise and walk among the living again.

aw crap. I gotta chose a new god? damn you FWC!!! I love this stuff!

Beane has maintained a competetive roster for 4 years with a $45MM payroll. He has a system which increases the odds of keeping his pitchers healthy and scoring runs without the big name high dollar 5 tool type players. He's figured out how to maximize returns for his players, he's made some fantastic trades and kept a good farm system healthy by offering arbitration to free agents that sign elsewhere.

His team has won more games than any other team over the last 4 years, and he's lost four game 5's.

He ain't a god, but I would definitely call him a top 5 gm. Mainly because of payroll constraints. He's setup the A's minor league system to replenish itself and he's gotten lucky and unlucky. John 'Freaking' Mabry had absolutely no business slugging 0.523 for the A's, but he did. Jeremey Giambi should have slid into home against the Yankees, but he didn't. Maybe he's not as awesome as Moneyball suggests, but the anger and backlash against him ("sycophants") is just as misguided. Olivo might turn into a star, he might fade out. It's hard to say.

So.. has anyone here actually read Moneyball?? I have to get a copy sometime and read it. I hear that it is a pretty good book. :D:

Are you actually asking which $10MM/year catcher you'd rather have than Olivo?!? um... well, yeah, that's one way to think.

gosox41
04-19-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Ha, Olivo wouldn't have made the A's? You better believe he would have if Billy Beane is the genius he believes he is. They have what, Damian Miller and Adam Melhuse as their catchers? And Olivo wouldn't have made the team?

At the time the trade was made they had Ramon Martinez as their catcher. He had a good year in '03 but had to trade him.


Bob

gosox41
04-19-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
That's an ownership issue. KW is just repeating what his superior want the public message to be. How many times have we seen him do things creatively trying to win within the boundaries provided by JR. He got Alomar, Carl Everett and Sullivan without taking on any real payroll. I don't see this Beane love-affair. It's pretty silly if you ask me. Their payroll hasn't exactly been 20 million. Oakland's payroll is within 10 million of the Sox. They have bullpen issues, they have real problems with holes in their lineup. What is so freaking god-like about that?

Where Kenny is going to eventually be judged, IMO, is going to be by what he does over the next 2 years. He's got everyone but Frank off the payroll, essentially. Loaiza, Konerko, Koch, Valentin, that's 25+ million for next year alone. The fans demand he resign Maggs, but at 14 million, that is going to limit him long-term to some degree, won't you admit?

Hopefully Maggs and Loaiza can be re-signed, because there aren't any real attractive starters on the market this fall. Bullpen and starting rotation, lead-off man are key holes on this team.



What abou the last 3 seasons? KW needs to be judged especially considering the way he bogged down the payroll with guys like PK and Koch.



Bob

jabrch
04-19-2004, 06:21 PM
I read it - and I liked the book. It was just a bit to self-serving for my tastes. Lewis and Beane were pushing a one-sided agenda. It's as if I were reading "Iraq War" by John Kerry, or "Environmental Health and Safety" by Bush.

It was one sided and didn't present a proper view of the realities of baseball, that a team must be balanced to win, and that no calculator can balance a team.

gosox41
04-19-2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Again, what has he won? Florida won with a lower payroll and won the series... What has Beane won again?

He is looking at things in a different manner than people traditionally have in baseball. That is fantastic and I applaud him for that. His arrogant, know-everything, approach to it and his reliance on statistics is one reason why it hasn't won anything. He has drafted some TERRIFIC pitchers, but without those 3 pitchers, would he have EVER made the playoffs? I don't think so. Drafting pitching is an absolute crap-shoot, but the talent in the top half of the first round is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Some degree of luck is definitely attributable to having those 3 guys stay healthy and making it.

THAT is the statistical anomaly in all of this folks. A fact that is CLEARLY being overlooked.

Here's a link to the 2003 payrolls. Floridday spent $7 mill more.


Also, give Beane credit for drafting those pitchers. People say he was lucky. Was he lucy to draft Harden? I'ld take him. What about Blanton. Beane psyched KW out of taking him.

Bob

gosox41
04-19-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Oakland has a payroll that is 5mm smaller than ours this year. Not significant. Beane doesn't spend money on his hitters because his calculator and spreadsheet has told him that he can get good hitters for cheaply. So he has Hatteberg, Karros, Kotsay, Ellis, etc. He does have his Ordonez- Jermaine Dye at 11mm, right?

In a few years, when Zito (2006), Mulder (2006) and Hudson (2005) are all FAs and are worthy of 12mm deals, Beane will not field a team that is competitive inthe AL West - unless he manages to draft SPs to take the place of whichever of those guys they end up losing.

KW, for all his bashers, has done a good job for this team. He has found MLB level players who were cheap and who can perform at an all-star level. I am not talking about Matt Stairs good, or about Scott Hatteberg good, but I am talking about Esteban Loaiza. I am talking about Damaso Marte. I am talking about Miguel Olivo.

Why is Beane and his spreadsheet worshipped, while KW is so bashed? I think either method could be successful if either GM had 100mm to spend.

So Oakland would have a 6 year window of opportnity to win. Isn't taht what most teams that have some sort of budget have? I thought there was some mention of this 6 year window a few years ago in reference to the Sox.


Bob

gosox41
04-19-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Outside of the move of drafting those three, what move has Beane made which was so key and golden? It alone has been the foundation for these winning seasons. He has been able to field a fantastic regular-season team around them. You're twisting my words saying I want to compare him minus those three players. I'm saying that he hasn't made any terrific moves at all outside of those three. He has made some good moves for the long haul by getting extra draft picks and making some low-risk low-reward picks out of them.



It's an absolute crap-shoot and it is a long-term issue. Every organization fights pitching injuries. What Beane has done is to shy away from HS pitchers and draft college pitchers, because they are closer to the majors and many have already passed the most high-risk time in their careers. In the long run, IMO, this is a low-reward strategy. He made terrific picks with Zito/Mulder/Hudson, but to be arrogant or naive enough to believe he will have that kind of good fortune continually is silly.

I'll try to do some research on that. I can't remember every deal he made.


Bob

voodoochile
04-19-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
So Oakland would have a 6 year window of opportnity to win. Isn't taht what most teams that have some sort of budget have? I thought there was some mention of this 6 year window a few years ago in reference to the Sox.


Bob

Yup, 04, 05 and 06 still to go... :D:

FarWestChicago
04-19-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
He ain't a god, but I would definitely call him a top 5 gm. Mainly because of payroll constraints. He's setup the A's minor league system to replenish itself and he's gotten lucky and unlucky. John 'Freaking' Mabry had absolutely no business slugging 0.523 for the A's, but he did. Jeremey Giambi should have slid into home against the Yankees, but he didn't. Maybe he's not as awesome as Moneyball suggests, but the anger and backlash against him ("sycophants") is just as misguided. Olivo might turn into a star, he might fade out. It's hard to say. He is a good GM. There are two of them out here. I only jumped in because of the ridiculous logical fallacies and rhetoric being presented as "facts". They were just a bit much too take for any rational person that can think for themselves. :smile:

jabrch
04-19-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Beane psyched KW out of taking him.

Bob


So says Beane. I wonder if there is another side to that story that we don't know about because he didn't write a book that slaps other GMs in the face?

jeremyb1
04-19-2004, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
So says Beane. I wonder if there is another side to that story that we don't know about because he didn't write a book that slaps other GMs in the face?

And Lewis. The details of the Bradford/Olivo deal was later relayed to Lewis by Beane but Lewis was with Beane during the '02 draft. He was in the room when Beane talked with KW, so that require two people to be boldfaced liars with some inexplicable agenda of making other GMs in baseball look bad.

Why would Beane lie about conversations with KW? He has to talk trades with him and interact with him. Its certainly not in his best interest.

Randar68
04-20-2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
And Lewis. The details of the Bradford/Olivo deal was later relayed to Lewis by Beane but Lewis was with Beane during the '02 draft. He was in the room when Beane talked with KW, so that require two people to be boldfaced liars with some inexplicable agenda of making other GMs in baseball look bad.

Why would Beane lie about conversations with KW? He has to talk trades with him and interact with him. Its certainly not in his best interest.

And he could only hear one side of the convo. While that might not mean much to a ;believer" like yourself, it's just that kind of writing based upon incomplete evidence which makes many of Lewis' assertions hard to swallow for anyone with their own thought process.

jabrch
04-20-2004, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
And he could only hear one side of the convo. While that might not mean much to a ;believer" like yourself, it's just that kind of writing based upon incomplete evidence which makes many of Lewis' assertions hard to swallow for anyone with their own thought process.

Come on Jeremy, you are smarter than that. I don't even read your stuff anymore - so I can't respond to it, but get real. Is it possible that Beane is not the genious he and Lewis tell you he is, while KW is not the dope that they paint him as? I wonder?

gosox41
04-20-2004, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yup, 04, 05 and 06 still to go... :D:

Any day KW wants to make some sound decisions is fine with me. Every time he takes a step forward, he takes 2 backward. The A-Rod trade not happening this offseason may have saved KW from himself. Ifthe A-Rod trade happened, Magglio would be gone. Heck, if Colon had accepted the Sox offer Magglio would be gone.


Bob