PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus praises KW for Olivo trade


MRKARNO
05-05-2004, 05:06 PM
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2841

Kenny Williams has taken a lot of valid criticism over the years, but too much for the Chad Bradford trade. At the time, Bradford was an effective minor-league reliever, and the prospect he brought in return had considerable upside. After a few years, Miguel Olivo has established himself as a two-way catcher, hitting .300/.375/.520 so far this year and throwing out 33% of basestealers in his career.
Maybe Olivo never gets a chapter in a book, but he's a very good player, and more than worth the price paid.

This just kind of goes back to that huge arguement between Randar and co. vs jeremyb1 & co. Statpeople like baseball prospectus aren't as blinded entirely by their complicated statistics as Randar made it out to be and the view that jeremyb1 represented. BP is probably the leading authority on baseball statistic evaluation and one of their leading writers just wrote on how KW clearly got the better end of the deal.

jeremyb1
05-05-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2841



This just kind of goes back to that huge arguement between Randar and co. vs jeremyb1 & co. Statpeople like baseball prospectus aren't as blinded entirely by their complicated statistics as Randar made it out to be and the view that jeremyb1 represented. BP is probably the leading authority on baseball statistic evaluation and one of their leading writers just wrote on how KW clearly got the better end of the deal.

Hehe. Well not to rehash the entire debate but nothing I said in that thread really contradicts what Joe Sheehan wrote above. I consistently stated I'd rather have Olivo and that KW did a good job bringing him on board, just that he undervalued Bradford and that it was far from a given that Olivo would become an outstanding player.

Irishsox1
05-05-2004, 05:53 PM
This was a great trade by KW, but it took sometime to play out. Before the trade could pan out, Billy Beene said that he got the total upper hand in the trade in the book "Moneyball". So, every pin head at ESPN or Billy Beene butt kisser points to that as to how much of a genius he is. Of course this year, Beene looks like the loser of the trade due to Bradford's great 7.71 era.

jabrch
05-05-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
So, every pin head at ESPN or Billy Beene butt kisser points to that as to how much of a genius he is. Of course this year, Beene looks like the loser of the trade due to Bradford's great 7.71 era.

DING-DING-DING

Blind stupid allegience to Moneyball made a lot of people believe that KW is a bad GM, that he got fleeced by Beane (on this deal, as well as on the Blanton draftpick) and that he has no business running a major league team. Many of the same people think that a calculator and a spreadsheet tells you enough about a player to evaluate talent.

I couldn't give a rat's backside what Baseball Prospectus thinks about this deal. I like it. I liked it then - and I like it now. Give me a strong defensive catcher prospect with offensive capability any day over a guy with a gimmicky delivery who projects out, at best, as a setup man.

Beane is going to get his. 2005 and 2006 will bring FA to Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Lets see what he can do without those three? From watching them pitch, I can tell you that duchscher, harden and Redman look nothing like Z/M/H. I will laugh. In fact, they are probably the worst team in their division already.

I used to like Oakland - casually. I liked the bash brothers. I liked Reggie Jackson. I liked Rickey Henderson. But Beane's pompous arrogance and the blind stupidity of many of his worshipers has left a really anti-oakland taste in my mouth. I wonder why?

Hondo
05-05-2004, 06:12 PM
Moneyball/sabermetrics whatever you want to go by is fine. I happen to quite enjoy that aspect but professional sports are a business. And in business the importance to be flexible and look for any avenue to be successful is paramount, not blind loyalty to a system.


I know it's early but Rich Harden isn't living up to Jesus Beane's expectations. I believe I heard him quoted as saying Harden would be BETTER than the big three of Hudson, Zito, and Mulder.

jabrch
05-05-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Hondo
Moneyball/sabermetrics whatever you want to go by is fine. I happen to quite enjoy that aspect but professional sports are a business. And in business the importance to be flexible and look for any avenue to be successful is paramount, not blind loyalty to a system.


I know it's early but Rich Harden isn't living up to Jesus Beane's expectations. I believe I heard him quoted as saying Harden would be BETTER than the big three of Hudson, Zito, and Mulder.

Beane's theories are nice. There is a place for them alongside of prudent baseball people. However the fact that there are people out there willing to blindly discard scouting as the primary and truly dependable tool to evaluate players and are willing to replace them with spreadsheets and caclulators, and that there are bigleague owners throwing large amounts of money behind this is still astounding to me. Beane got extraordinarily lucky to have Zito/Mulder/Hudson come up together and stay healthy. The odds of three CyYoung calibre pitchers coming up together are slim. Lets see how his subsequent drafting of pitchers works. Well, since Mulder, we have seen Oakland bring up Harang, Harden and Duschscher - none of whom looks to be in the ballpark of the big 3.

Gumshoe
05-05-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Beane's theories are nice. There is a place for them alongside of prudent baseball people. However the fact that there are people out there willing to blindly discard scouting as the primary and truly dependable tool to evaluate players and are willing to replace them with spreadsheets and caclulators, and that there are bigleague owners throwing large amounts of money behind this is still astounding to me. Beane got extraordinarily lucky to have Zito/Mulder/Hudson come up together and stay healthy. The odds of three CyYoung calibre pitchers coming up together are slim. Lets see how his subsequent drafting of pitchers works. Well, since Mulder, we have seen Oakland bring up Harang, Harden and Duschscher - none of whom looks to be in the ballpark of the big 3.

Yes, all these points are decent, but let's not forget that Beane's teams have won 392 games over the past 4 years. Say what you will but writing this off to "LUCK" is absolutely ridiculous. He deserves no credit? And he isn't a better GM than is KW? Come on. KW hasn't made 1 postseason series yet. I'm sure you will all chirp in and say that the A's haven't won a postseason series in that time either, but they had as sporting a chance in any of those random 5 game series (mostly against NYY, too). Yes, there is something to be said about winning a 5 game series, but not much. I'll take Beane any day over KW, but the Ozzie hire was good, I think.

G

jabrch
05-05-2004, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Yes, all these points are decent, but let's not forget that Beane's teams have won 392 games over the past 4 years. Say what you will but writing this off to "LUCK" is absolutely ridiculous. He deserves no credit? And he isn't a better GM than is KW? Come on. KW hasn't made 1 postseason series yet. I'm sure you will all chirp in and say that the A's haven't won a postseason series in that time either, but they had as sporting a chance in any of those random 5 game series (mostly against NYY, too). Yes, there is something to be said about winning a 5 game series, but not much. I'll take Beane any day over KW, but the Ozzie hire was good, I think.

G

I am not writing off the 392 wins to luck. and I am not saying he deserves no credit. I am saying that he isn't the godlike creature that many profess that he is.

That said, I have not seen anything that Beane did since taking over the job of GM that was so spectacular that he deserves sactification. Since he fired all his scouts, and ran his 2002 draft on a calculator, I just haven't seen it.

I do understand the randomness of a 5 game series, but you have to build teams that can win game serieses and 7 gamers too. Those teams are going to be teams with stars on them, and sluggers on them. Not teams with Byrnes, Hatteberg, Menachino, Miller, etc. Beane does the best he can on a 60mm budget. So does KW. Imagine if moRON Schuler hadn't left the farm in such disarray? KW might have actually walked in here with more talent. We might be talking about Moneyball, the KW story.

gosox41
05-06-2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
DING-DING-DING

Blind stupid allegience to Moneyball made a lot of people believe that KW is a bad GM, that he got fleeced by Beane (on this deal, as well as on the Blanton draftpick) and that he has no business running a major league team. Many of the same people think that a calculator and a spreadsheet tells you enough about a player to evaluate talent.

I couldn't give a rat's backside what Baseball Prospectus thinks about this deal. I like it. I liked it then - and I like it now. Give me a strong defensive catcher prospect with offensive capability any day over a guy with a gimmicky delivery who projects out, at best, as a setup man.

Beane is going to get his. 2005 and 2006 will bring FA to Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Lets see what he can do without those three? From watching them pitch, I can tell you that duchscher, harden and Redman look nothing like Z/M/H. I will laugh. In fact, they are probably the worst team in their division already.

I used to like Oakland - casually. I liked the bash brothers. I liked Reggie Jackson. I liked Rickey Henderson. But Beane's pompous arrogance and the blind stupidity of many of his worshipers has left a really anti-oakland taste in my mouth. I wonder why?

"Moneyball" didn't make me think KW was a bad GM, it just confirmed it. Todd Ritchie, Royce Clayton, and Billy Koch to name a few made me thing KW is a bad GM.


Bob

gosox41
05-06-2004, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I am not writing off the 392 wins to luck. and I am not saying he deserves no credit. I am saying that he isn't the godlike creature that many profess that he is.

That said, I have not seen anything that Beane did since taking over the job of GM that was so spectacular that he deserves sactification. Since he fired all his scouts, and ran his 2002 draft on a calculator, I just haven't seen it.

I do understand the randomness of a 5 game series, but you have to build teams that can win game serieses and 7 gamers too. Those teams are going to be teams with stars on them, and sluggers on them. Not teams with Byrnes, Hatteberg, Menachino, Miller, etc. Beane does the best he can on a 60mm budget. So does KW. Imagine if moRON Schuler hadn't left the farm in such disarray? KW might have actually walked in here with more talent. We might be talking about Moneyball, the KW story.

He certainly isn't godlike, but he's better then the guy we got here. KW has slightly more resources to work with and inherited a 95 win team. I'm still waiting for a playoff appearance from this team. Say what you will about Beane and lack of success in the playoffs. He's been there 3 years in a row while playing in a tougher division then the Sox. As of right now he is a better GM then KW.



Bob

jabrch
05-06-2004, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
"Moneyball" didn't make me think KW was a bad GM, it just confirmed it. Todd Ritchie, Royce Clayton, and Billy Koch to name a few made me thing KW is a bad GM.


Bob

So he needs to have a perfect record as a GM to not be a bad one? Who is a "good" GM?

jabrch
05-06-2004, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
He certainly isn't godlike, but he's better then the guy we got here. KW has slightly more resources to work with and inherited a 95 win team. I'm still waiting for a playoff appearance from this team. Say what you will about Beane and lack of success in the playoffs. He's been there 3 years in a row while playing in a tougher division then the Sox. As of right now he is a better GM then KW.



Bob

KW and Beane have the same budget this year. and ya know what? The Sox are a better team than Oakland is. And next year, when he loses Hudson, the Sox will be even further better. And the year after that, when Zito and/or Mulder leave, I hope you are still here telling me that Redman, Duschscerer, Harden and Blanton are good.

Beane will never win anything because he doesn't build teams that are designed to win big games or to hit against big game pitchers. It's easier to build a team for the regular season than to build one that can also succeed in a 5 or 7 game series.

gosox41
05-06-2004, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
KW and Beane have the same budget this year. and ya know what? The Sox are a better team than Oakland is. And next year, when he loses Hudson, the Sox will be even further better. And the year after that, when Zito and/or Mulder leave, I hope you are still here telling me that Redman, Duschscerer, Harden and Blanton are good.

Beane will never win anything because he doesn't build teams that are designed to win big games or to hit against big game pitchers. It's easier to build a team for the regular season than to build one that can also succeed in a 5 or 7 game series.

The season still has to play out to see who is a better team. But I know who's been better the last 3 years. And we'll see about Beane. Of course I'll be following Blanton's career just because the Sox were interested in him but got psyched out.

Meanwhile, until KW makes a playoff appearance as a GM he is a worse GM then Beane. I look forward to the day the Sox actually get to play meaningful games in October. I hope it's this year.


Bob

gosox41
05-06-2004, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
So he needs to have a perfect record as a GM to not be a bad one? Who is a "good" GM?

Beane. Hendry. Gillick to name a few off the top of my head. It's late.

Bob

jabrch
05-06-2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
[B] Of course I'll be following Blanton's career just because the Sox were interested in him but got psyched out.

So says Beane and Lewis. Isn't it possible that KW wasn't psyched out, and that he wanted a guy who was closer to being MLB ready than Blanton?

I look forward to the day the Sox actually get to play meaningful games in October. I hope it's this year.


You and me both....you and me both.

jabrch
05-06-2004, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Beane. Hendry. Gillick to name a few off the top of my head. It's late.

Bob


I'll give you Hendry and Gillick - but not Beane.

Right now, Hudson, Zito and Mulder are watching this team get beaten because of how poor the offense is. This team has no chance this year, none at all. Had Oakland not had extraordinary luck to have 3 Ace-Calibre pitchers come up together and remain 100% healthy, Beane wouldn't have the record he had the past three years. Yes he deserves some credit, but tell me what Beane has done right. We have listed the good and bad moves that KW has made, but as I look at this Oakland roster, I can't pick too many good Billy Beane moves. Kotsay? Byrnes? Dye - ok? Hatteberg? Durazo? Even prize prospects like Crosby aren't cutting it. They have a .255 team average with a .327 OBP and a .411 slg. We have a .273/.350/.465. Beane has done nothing since he fired his scouts in 2002 that looks to me to have made that team any better. The results that look very good, the last 5 years of victories, seem to be results of groundwork layed before.

batmanZoSo
05-06-2004, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Hehe. Well not to rehash the entire debate but nothing I said in that thread really contradicts what Joe Sheehan wrote above. I consistently stated I'd rather have Olivo and that KW did a good job bringing him on board, just that he undervalued Bradford and that it was far from a given that Olivo would become an outstanding player.

I'm never gonna lose sleep over a fine setup man when we got a great catcher for him. The latter is infinitely harder to find.

gosox41
05-06-2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
So says Beane and Lewis. Isn't it possible that KW wasn't psyched out, and that he wanted a guy who was closer to being MLB ready than Blanton?




You and me both....you and me both.

To be honest, I've only heard of one situation of a team drafting a closer in the first round and that was Gregg Olson by Baltimore. Most closers are converted starters. IMHO, it was a wasted pick A starting pitcher is always more valuable then a reliever and shame on KW if he can't realize this.

And I don't think KW was looking to draft a closer. KW supposedly called Beane to gauge his interest in Blanton. I don't see Beane and Lewis having an interest in making up conversations. I'll give KW credit for recognizing Blanton was a top talent, but based on what I've read and what happened, KW was psyched out about signing Blanton because Beane told him he wasn't going to be available so he worked out a deal for a closer. Like an idiot, when it came his turn to pick he was stuck going with Ring when he could have had Blanton.


Bob

doublem23
05-06-2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I'll give you Hendry and Gillick - but not Beane.

Right now, Hudson, Zito and Mulder are watching this team get beaten because of how poor the offense is. This team has no chance this year, none at all. Had Oakland not had extraordinary luck to have 3 Ace-Calibre pitchers come up together and remain 100% healthy, Beane wouldn't have the record he had the past three years. Yes he deserves some credit, but tell me what Beane has done right. We have listed the good and bad moves that KW has made, but as I look at this Oakland roster, I can't pick too many good Billy Beane moves. Kotsay? Byrnes? Dye - ok? Hatteberg? Durazo? Even prize prospects like Crosby aren't cutting it. They have a .255 team average with a .327 OBP and a .411 slg. We have a .273/.350/.465. Beane has done nothing since he fired his scouts in 2002 that looks to me to have made that team any better. The results that look very good, the last 5 years of victories, seem to be results of groundwork layed before.

Yes, the baseball season is 25 games long.