PDA

View Full Version : The "Moneyball Draft"


jabrch
05-28-2005, 01:19 AM
Since it was crowned as the greatest draft in the history of sports, I think it is time to do a brief review of the outcomes of those drafted by Billy The Great in 2002.

Swisher .202/.280/.345, 9BB and 25Ks - THAT SUCKS

Blanton 0-5, ERA over 6, WHIP over 1.5, opp avg .290

McCurdy (Stockton) .236/.312 38Ks/15BBs

Fritz - I find no evidence he is even in the game still

Brown - .270 at midland

Obenchain 6.00 ERA at midland. bad

Teahen - might be the best of the bunch....but not for Oakland - SEE KC

Colamarino - he's actually tearing the cover off the ball in Midland...

Jerome
05-28-2005, 02:30 AM
how is "The Creature" doing?

I remember he was the one with the messed-up delivery.

Banix12
05-28-2005, 03:50 AM
It's still too early to judge the quality of the players from that draft since the few that have reached the majors from that draft are only rookies, however it is true that it's not looking good in the early going.

Though frankly I feel bad for a lot of these players, because of that book the expectations on these guys to succeed is rediculously high. Way higher than it really should be. The expectation is for all of these guys to be special players, that's just unreasonable. A select few might be special, a few more might be serviceable major leaguers, most of those drafted that year won't make the majors and probably a good number of them are already out of baseball.

I also think where the book Moneyball failed a bit was it basically projected this draft as a success for the A's before the players even threw a pitch. It's actually a credit to Michael Lewis as a writer because he wrote so well and was so positive toward what Beane did that draft you had to feel that he was right and the old scouts were all wrong. Even if it didn't say they were great right at the draft, you got the impression that every guy they drafted that year was can't miss. Though when you get right down to it most of that was hyperbole.

RKMeibalane
05-28-2005, 01:44 PM
I completely disagree even with the contention that the draft "doesn't look good" so far. A draft where two players have reached the major leagues for the club and appear to have bright futures, another acted as key trade bait, and others continue to appear promising is hardly a failure. Swisher went down early and has a mere 88 at bats this season, judging the success of that pick based on such few at bats so early in a player's career is beyond ridiculous. Blanton has had a bit more of a shot with nine starts this season but that's still hardly a legitimate sample size to form impressions on a player's value over the course of his career. If you think early Major League struggles by a starting pitcher fortell a lack of success Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, and Brandon McCarthy would like to disagree with you. Blanton's value is much more accurately conveyed through his stellar minor league numbers at this point and there aren't many GMs who would take Royce Ring or a player that has yet to reach the major leagues over Blanton.

It'd be nice if Brown were able to hold his own in AAA at this point but catchers often develop late and .277/.399/.469 is pretty sick for a catcher even if it is at AA. As you said Colamarino is crushing the ball right now. I'm sure Beane would like it if he were perfect but he's on record as stating that he makes plenty of mistakes like everyone else. Right now 7 of the first 40 players taken in the 2002 draft are Major League regulars and three of the 7 were drafted by Oakland so I'm struggling to understand how the draft is a horrific failure. Somehow I don't expect to see a thread trashing Dave Littlefield for drafting Brian Bullington first in this forum anytime soon...

Well, well, well... what do we have here?

Jeremyb1 returns to defend his idol, Billy Beane!

balke
05-28-2005, 01:46 PM
Joe Blanton cannot strike out major league batters. 13 K's in 44 innings is horrible. Royce Ring did make the majors for the Mets 3 innings of work, 1K 2ER. If its too early to decide on Blanton, even though he clearly sucks, then its too early to bash ring.

Rauch had an ERA of 4.00 before getting injured yet again this season for the Nationals fwiw.

RKMeibalane
05-28-2005, 01:48 PM
Joe Blanton cannot strike out major league batters. 13 K's in 44 innings is horrible. Royce Ring did make the majors for the Mets 3 innings of work, 1K 2ER. If its too early to decide on Blanton, even though he clearly sucks, then its too early to bash ring.

Rauch had an ERA of 4.00 before getting injured yet again this season for the Nationals fwiw.

I'm just trying to figure out why jeremy has placed Brandon McCarthy in the same group as Johnson, Maddux, and Schilling. Is it possible he's become stupider in the time he's been away from this site?

Banix12
05-28-2005, 05:52 PM
I completely disagree even with the contention that the draft "doesn't look good" so far. A draft where two players have reached the major leagues for the club and appear to have bright futures, another acted as key trade bait, and others continue to appear promising is hardly a failure. Swisher went down early and has a mere 88 at bats this season, judging the success of that pick based on such few at bats so early in a player's career is beyond ridiculous. Blanton has had a bit more of a shot with nine starts this season but that's still hardly a legitimate sample size to form impressions on a player's value over the course of his career. If you think early Major League struggles by a starting pitcher fortell a lack of success Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, and Brandon McCarthy would like to disagree with you. Blanton's value is much more accurately conveyed through his stellar minor league numbers at this point and there aren't many GMs who would take Royce Ring or a player that has yet to reach the major leagues over Blanton.

It'd be nice if Brown were able to hold his own in AAA at this point but catchers often develop late and .277/.399/.469 is pretty sick for a catcher even if it is at AA. As you said Colamarino is crushing the ball right now. I'm sure Beane would like it if he were perfect but he's on record as stating that he makes plenty of mistakes like everyone else. Right now 7 of the first 40 players taken in the 2002 draft are Major League regulars and three of the 7 were drafted by Oakland so I'm struggling to understand how the draft is a horrific failure. Somehow I don't expect to see a thread trashing Dave Littlefield for drafting Brian Bullington first in this forum anytime soon...

There isn't any point in bashing Dave Littlefield since even before the draft he was well known to be a moron as a GM. Beane however is in a tough situation where he has to put up or shut up, since the book basically made him look like the jesus of scouting.

The fact that a minor league player is used as trade bait doesn't exactly say that the player is going to be good. It means they got something for him but doesn't say anything about projecting his career as positive. So it still doesn't prove that he was a good pick based on major league performance, it just proves that he was valuable enough for a team to acquire.

The fact that they have reached the majors quickly doesn't prove that they will have a great career either. It could mean that they'll have a nice career after some early adversity or it could mean they were called up to early and it's crash and burn time. The duration of their stints in the majors will prove how successful the draft was, not the fact that they made it.

Mostly what this proves is that the A's need quality major league production out of draft picks quickly and at a higher frequency than teams with higher payrolls to succeed because they don't have the budget to sign their top talent long term. Which we all knew anyway.

Still way to early to judge this draft as a success or failure. However I think we can all say that because of that book, it was a marketing and PR success for the A's, because without it very few of us non-athletics fans would care about Billy Beane or his collection of draft picks.

Also early major league level statistical returns, while based on small samples, have largely not been positive, but again still too early.

CWSGuy406
05-28-2005, 07:23 PM
A guy who ADDS quality pitchers to his team rather than trades them for unproven crap.

...And under Kenny's tenure, we have made how many playoff apperances?

Look, I'm not a Kenny hater, nor am I a guy who's going to say, "Oh, well, Beane made the trade, so it's definitely good". Personally, I thought the package he got for Hudson was a little weak, but I'd have to say that I think he got a pretty good return for Mulder.

fquaye149
05-28-2005, 07:30 PM
...And under Kenny's tenure, we have made how many playoff apperances?

Look, I'm not a Kenny hater, nor am I a guy who's going to say, "Oh, well, Beane made the trade, so it's definitely good". Personally, I thought the package he got for Hudson was a little weak, but I'd have to say that I think he got a pretty good return for Mulder.

we have not had pitching. now we do. I would expect a playoff appearance this year. It appears the two GMs are going in opposite directions on the common sense "pitching wins divisions" platform.

Not that Kenny has been a genius in the past, but he has put together a much much much much better team than Beane this year...and furthermore, this season seems to indicate that Beane's offensive bible really didn't add up to a hill of...beans...it was the pitching he so foolishly dumped.

fquaye149
05-28-2005, 07:32 PM
Come on, now. Just because I defend him doesn't mean he's my idol or anything like that. Can we have a solid baseball discussion without calling people "morons" or stuff of the nature?


a spade a spade?

Beane wasn't a genius, imo. He benefited from having great draft picks from inheriting a lousy team. He got Mulder, Hudson and Zito, which cornerstoned that staff. Now with pothead pitching like a pothead, and Mulder and Hudson gone, the proof is in the pudding.

CWSGuy406
05-28-2005, 07:37 PM
Not that Kenny has been a genius in the past, but he has put together a much much much much better team than Beane this year...and furthermore, this season seems to indicate that Beane's offensive bible really didn't add up to a hill of...beans...it was the pitching he so foolishly dumped.

I can agree with your first statement, but two months a season doesn't make. Heck, if two months were everything, Boston wouldn't have even close to a WC spot last year. I doubt that Chavez will hover around .200 the whole year, as well as guys like Kendall.

As far as the trades, my stance on the Huddy trade (as I said) is that I didn't think he got enough, but in both of the trades, he got pretty young kids, so we really can't judge the trades. Beane's stance is that he wants to think about building a team for several years, not just one year, and his detractors say that he should have taken one more run at it.

I'll give Williams his due credit when his team makes the playoffs. Like I said, the team looks like it's in good shape for a playoff run this year, but, we'll see in September. :smile:

(And don't take that last sentence like I'm predicting a fall-off. I expect a team with five-six good starters, as well as a good bullpen, to be in the hunt for the whole season. We shall see.)

CWSGuy406
05-28-2005, 07:39 PM
a spade a spade?

Beane wasn't a genius, imo. He benefited from having great draft picks from inheriting a lousy team. He got Mulder, Hudson and Zito, which cornerstoned that staff. Now with pothead pitching like a pothead, and Mulder and Hudson gone, the proof is in the pudding.

...in two months of baseball. They've got some real solid youngsters on that team, and I don't expect them to hit so poorly for the majority of the season.

FarWestChicago
05-28-2005, 09:06 PM
Come on, now. Just because I defend him doesn't mean he's my idol or anything like that. Can we have a solid baseball discussion without calling people "morons" or stuff of the nature?FOBB's have a long history of being insulting and condescending on this board. Few people have any patience left with them. I would recommend you go to an A's board to sing the praises of Beane without repercussions, but he's getting ripped on there, too. :redneck

fquaye149
05-28-2005, 09:12 PM
...in two months of baseball. They've got some real solid youngsters on that team, and I don't expect them to hit so poorly for the majority of the season.

the a's never hit. with maybe one exception every year (chavez, tejada, giambi.)

if you think being in the cellar with the 3rd worst record in the AL behind only the drays and the royals is not enough to doom their season, you're crazy.

I'd like to see that stats and see if any team with the a's record by this point has ever come back to finish 2nd, much less make the playoffs.

A. Cavatica
05-28-2005, 09:12 PM
I think that there's certain people on this board that are so consistently inflammatory that they get the "gloves off" treatment.

Well, if you mean jerembyb1, I don't see how he deserves all the piling on. I mean, he believes what he believes, and he'll argue his point clearly and give you his reasoning. I don't consider him inflammatory. One doesn't have to agree with him to see that he is arguing rationally and civilly.

SluggersAway
05-28-2005, 09:29 PM
Face it, Michael Lewis is just a good storyteller. Where is Jim Clark and his New New Thing? Or the folks on Wall St. in Liar's Poker? Michael Lewis saw a good story in Billy Beane and milked it for all it is worth.

MRKARNO
05-29-2005, 12:24 AM
In this thread, Beane has been commended for his drafting of Teehan of the draft which brought him Dotel. But for all the rips that KW took from that draft because of Moneyball, he did draft Reed in the second round of that draft, two events which have not been connected by many. Reed was the centerpiece of the Freddy Garcia deal which helped the White Sox get a cornerstone of their pitching staff for 3.5 years (of which we're through not even a full year). Beane had 7 draft picks before KW drafted Reed, yet he chose not to take him. KW has not gotten nearly enough credit for this and in my opinion, it validated the draft for him (as well as using Ring to bolster our '03 chances with Robbie Alomar).

chaerulez
05-29-2005, 12:56 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but what is a FOBB?

Banix12
05-29-2005, 02:08 AM
Also, That was an excellent point by jeremy if it is true about the # of players.

7!!!!!! of the players from that draft have reached the big leagues. How can you call these players failures when none of the competition from that draft has even reached the big leagues?! By different logic, the moneyball draft was actually the best, because everyone drafted from all the other teams are still in the minors.


Maybe Swisher and Blanton tore it up in the minors How old are they again? So they got promoted. Too early? Maybe. But moneyball is based on getting production from cheap, young players.

They may have reached the major leagues but so did guys like Scott Ruffcorn and Shawn Abner. Reaching the majors is not the utimate test by which a good draft is measured, the impact of those players and how well they play is the ultimate test of how successful your draft was. Certainly getting to the majors gives them a leg up over a lot of other players who never did, but success is measured in production, not by just being there.

By Oakland getting players to the league faster than any other team, the A's right now have the best draft of that year by default, not because we know it was a good draft but because we have nothing to compare it to yet. Over time it might not be the best draft once other teams start bringing their players to the league.

Most other teams have the luxury of time in developing players, Oakland doesn't. They need their farm system to develop faster than a lot of other teams because they have to replace the free agents they lose because they can't afford them.

I'm not making any assumptions as to the success of the players because of their limited experience in the majors so far. If we did that we would take players like Jason Bere and Jerome Walton and say they were amazing successes because of their first year performances instead of the dissapointments they were over the total of their careers. Likewise with guys like Doug Davis in Milwaukee, who seemed to be a failure but now seems to be getting his career together.

RKMeibalane
05-29-2005, 08:57 AM
I thought personal attacks weren't cool at WSI.

Here's hoping you have a nice vacation.

Normally, personal attacks are frowned upon, but most of the members here are tired of jeremy's constant whining about anything and everything to do with Billy Beane. His constant worship of Reed, Olivo, and Beane, couple with his intense dislike of KW and the rest of the Sox front-office borders on trolling. Furthermore, I have an extremely hard time believing jeremy when he says that he's a Sox fan. Aside from OurBitchinMinny, who was banned a while back, I can't recall any "Sox fans" who routine disrespected their organization as much as jeremy does, whether he's doing it here, on at his web-blog.

hose
05-29-2005, 09:05 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but what is a FOBB?

I believe it's Freinds of Billy Beane.

FOLIP is Friends of Lip.

Lip is ok in my book, Beane otoh is a horse's @ss.

ode to veeck
05-29-2005, 09:12 AM
by definition, shouldn't any FOBB threads be in the "what's the score" forum?

we're supposed to be talking about actual baseball here in "talking baseball"

gobears1987
05-29-2005, 11:38 AM
by definition, shouldn't any FOBB threads be in the "what's the score" forum?

we're supposed to be talking about actual baseball here in "talking baseball"
FOBB threads ought to be sent to the ****house.

ewokpelts
05-29-2005, 11:59 AM
i used to like beane...then i read moneyball....and then i saw him trade awy 2/3 of the big three(which is odd since he could have signed them to big deals since he's now a part owner of the team...)


oh well....kenny said it best at soxfest: "let's see what moneyball can do without his pitching!"

CWSGuy406
05-29-2005, 12:34 PM
:?: I never called Bean a moron.

My apologies, FWC, that was directed at gobears, not you.

FarWestChicago
05-29-2005, 12:41 PM
My apologies, FWC, that was directed at gobears, not you.Good. :D:

Beane is a good GM. Living where I do, I knew about him long before "Moneyball". Unfortunately, that book probably overstated his case and created his cult like followers. And the latter are incredibly annoying. :redneck

CWSGuy406
05-29-2005, 12:53 PM
Good. :D:

Beane is a good GM. Living where I do, I knew about him long before "Moneyball". Unfortunately, that book probably overstated his case and created his cult like followers. And the latter are incredibly annoying. :redneck

Fair enough.

Like I said, I'm not just gonna say, "well, Beane made the trade, so it must be good" without looking at it myself. I just don't understand how people can call him a bad GM or something along the lines, when all he's had is success. But, the Beane fans who say he can do no wrong without even looking at the deal/move do tend to get a little aggravating...

gobears1987
05-29-2005, 02:33 PM
My apologies, FWC, that was directed at gobears, not you.
Beane is a moron. Anyone who knows just the basics about baseball realizes that it is pitching, not hitting, that wins championships. If you want to see a good example of this, lets look at the 2003 Marlins. Now they did have a few hitters like Ivan Rodriguez, but he wasn't why they won. They beat the Yankees because no one could hit a pitching rotation built of Beckett, Pavano, Dontrelle, and Burnett. That is why they won. The A's would've had a great chance to make a run for the WS this year with a rotation of Hudson, Mulder, Zito, and Harden. I could easily put those 4 against the Marlins staff of 2003. If BB had any brains, he would've realized that and his team wouldn't be in the cellar as they are right now.

KW hasn't made all of the best trades, but he realizes pitching is the key. He has done everything he could to ensure that the Sox have pitching, even if it meant dumping solid hitters. The Garcia trade didn't cost us any solid hitters, but JeremyB1 would have you think differently on that. KW was quick to ensure we have FG for 3 additional seasons and if you've seen his last few starts you know that is money well spent. He got us Contreras in a nice trade when he knew Loaiza would walk at the end of the year anyways to the Yanks and was slumping. He then resigned Garland in arbitration when many were calling for him to make a trade for a bat like Soriano, and he then signed El Duque for 2 years. The Duke has been amazing for us with only 1 real bad start where he was pitching hurt. The money to sign these pitchers came at the expense of Maggs and Caballo, but they were great moves. KW understands that real championships are won by pitching not hitting. It isn't just our starting 5 that we can thank Kenny's ideas for, but we can also thank him for shoring up the pen with the addition of Hermanson. Vizcaino's addition gave me hopes, but even with him stinking we are fine as Kenny gave us 5 strong arms there.

Kenny may not have won a championship yet, but this is the first year he has been free to do what he wants with this team. He was able to get the pitching he has always wanted. On the flip side, BB went the opposite way and dumped pitching to get the hitters he wanted. Who's philosophy seems to be doing better?

CWSGuy406
05-30-2005, 12:17 AM
Beane is a moron. Anyone who knows just the basics about baseball realizes that it is pitching, not hitting, that wins championships. If you want to see a good example of this, lets look at the 2003 Marlins. Now they did have a few hitters like Ivan Rodriguez, but he wasn't why they won. They beat the Yankees because no one could hit a pitching rotation built of Beckett, Pavano, Dontrelle, and Burnett. That is why they won. The A's would've had a great chance to make a run for the WS this year with a rotation of Hudson, Mulder, Zito, and Harden. I could easily put those 4 against the Marlins staff of 2003. If BB had any brains, he would've realized that and his team wouldn't be in the cellar as they are right now.

KW hasn't made all of the best trades, but he realizes pitching is the key. He has done everything he could to ensure that the Sox have pitching, even if it meant dumping solid hitters. The Garcia trade didn't cost us any solid hitters, but JeremyB1 would have you think differently on that. KW was quick to ensure we have FG for 3 additional seasons and if you've seen his last few starts you know that is money well spent. He got us Contreras in a nice trade when he knew Loaiza would walk at the end of the year anyways to the Yanks and was slumping. He then resigned Garland in arbitration when many were calling for him to make a trade for a bat like Soriano, and he then signed El Duque for 2 years. The Duke has been amazing for us with only 1 real bad start where he was pitching hurt. The money to sign these pitchers came at the expense of Maggs and Caballo, but they were great moves. KW understands that real championships are won by pitching not hitting. It isn't just our starting 5 that we can thank Kenny's ideas for, but we can also thank him for shoring up the pen with the addition of Hermanson. Vizcaino's addition gave me hopes, but even with him stinking we are fine as Kenny gave us 5 strong arms there.

Kenny may not have won a championship yet, but this is the first year he has been free to do what he wants with this team. He was able to get the pitching he has always wanted. On the flip side, BB went the opposite way and dumped pitching to get the hitters he wanted. Who's philosophy seems to be doing better?

Like I said, if you want to judge after two months, be my guest.

I'll give Beane the benefit of the doubt until he proves that his teams aren't competing. Are they competing now? No, but it's two months. Right now, the Sox are doing great, and Kenny has seemingly built a real solid team. But we were in first place several times before (IIRC in 2003 and 2004), and it didn't last. I'll give Kenny his props, but he's gotta win the ALC before he gets the label of a good-to-great GM.

And, if Kenny knew that pitching was the key to success, where the heck was it last year?

BTW -- right now, they're going through some bumps in the road, but I wouldn't count on Oakland's overall staff being bad. Meyer-Haren-Blanton-Harden is going to be one heck of a rotation, and with young guys like Street and Garcia in the 'pen, they're going to have one real nice staff. IMHO, of course.

jabrch
05-30-2005, 02:47 AM
If Billy Beane, a guy who has had his team in the playoffs twice and hasn't won under 90 games since '99, is a moron, what does that make Kenny Williams...?

A guy building a clean team, not loaded with juicers, and not dependent on a few guys who were drafted and subsequently left the first time they had a chance!

jabrch
05-30-2005, 02:49 AM
a spade a spade?

Beane wasn't a genius, imo. He benefited from having great draft picks from inheriting a lousy team. He got Mulder, Hudson and Zito, which cornerstoned that staff. Now with pothead pitching like a pothead, and Mulder and Hudson gone, the proof is in the pudding.

Don't forget a loaded offense from a team that sucked badly too, including cheaters like Stairs, Giambi (2X), Jaha, etc. Chavez, who was proven to be unable to do it on his own, and Tejada, who left as fast as his two feet could carry him.

gosox41
05-30-2005, 07:59 AM
He then resigned Garland in arbitration when many were calling for him to make a trade for a bat like Soriano,

Kenny may not have won a championship yet, but this is the first year he has been free to do what he wants with this team. He was able to get the pitching he has always wanted. On the flip side, BB went the opposite way and dumped pitching to get the hitters he wanted. Who's philosophy seems to be doing better?

2 issues:

1. First, most people here including me) don't see the value in Soriano.

2. How is this the first year KW has been free to do what he wants? I'd honestly like to hear the explanation.



Bob

fquaye149
05-30-2005, 08:13 AM
:whiner:2 issues:

1. First, most people here including me) don't see the value in Soriano.

2. How is this the first year KW has been free to do what he wants? I'd honestly like to hear the explanation.



Bob

i think this is the 1st year JR has increasedpayroll significantly since KW has arrived, iirc

gosox41
05-30-2005, 08:33 AM
:whiner:

i think this is the 1st year JR has increasedpayroll significantly since KW has arrived, iirc


But KW still had control over all player decisions since 2001. Also, this is the second year in a row JR has increased payroll. It's the first year that KW has invested that payroll wisely.



Bob

MRKARNO
05-30-2005, 10:27 AM
:whiner:

i think this is the 1st year JR has increasedpayroll significantly since KW has arrived, iirc

This offseason involved the largest increase in payroll, but it has been going up pretty much every offseason since KW took control.

gobears1987
05-30-2005, 10:35 AM
This offseason involved the largest increase in payroll, but it has been going up pretty much every offseason since KW took control.
The payroll increases in the past are misleading. Most of those payroll increases were to incorporate contracts where players make more money later in their deals. Most players have deals like Freddy Garcia's where they have something like 8 million the first year, 9 the 2nd, and 10 the 3rd. The payhroll increases were to incorporate those deals, not for new acquisitions. All of that changed this year and JR gave KW the budget to get the pitching that he always wanted.

And back on BB. Sure he did put some good seasons together, but I don't count them. Why? Can anyone say steroids? I mean the A's have had McGuire, Canseco, and Giambi. They were the reason that the A's were able to win. Now that roids are disappearing, it is pitching that will win championships. Someone needs to tell this to Beane. He is living in the 90s and seems to have missed the lessons to be learned from the Marlins that pitching wins. If batting were the key as Beane thinks, then the Rangers would be in 1st place every year as they consistently put good hitters on the field but lack the great pitching (unless we play them.)

IIRC, we had a thread during ST from a WSI member who met a scout from the A's. It appears the A's don't believe SBs mean anything in baseball. This is just ignorance. Any person with a brain can see that having Podsednik on base isn't just good because he steals. It is good because it messes with the pitcher's mind. Remember that Jays game where he had 4 SBs. The pitcher was so worried about Pods that he was giving fastballs to PK. PK ended up with 2 HRs as a result. It appears Billy Beane and the A's just don't understand fundamental baseball.

Flight #24
05-30-2005, 11:09 AM
And, I just wanted to know what he thought of Kenny Williams if he called Beane a "moron".



Maybe he thought that Kenny Williams was a GM who in his first 3 years, a GM who in his 4th year had a team that was in first place and looking extremely good until getting devastated by injury. Or that he's a GM who in his 5th year put together a team that so far is the best in baseball and looks like a 100+win team (like Beane's 5th year team).

The constant "Well, Beane's made the playoffs, KW hasn't" chant is 100% ludicrous. Like comparing a rookie to a 3-4 year veteran and deciding that they suck. Beane's teams struggled their first 3 years, then took off. In fact, through 3 years, KW has a 250-236 record compared to Beane's 226-260. Through 4 it's still 333-315 KW, 317-330 Beane.

CWSGuy406
05-30-2005, 12:11 PM
But KW still had control over all player decisions since 2001. Also, this is the second year in a row JR has increased payroll. It's the first year that KW has invested that payroll wisely.



Bob

And our payroll -- correct me if I'm wrong -- has always been higher than Minny's, or at least since 2002, I'd have to think...

And Flight, sooner or later, ya gotta see results. And so far, I haven't seen any. Last year's team -- ehh, it might have made the playoffs, but our pitching sucked down the stretch too. Heck, didn't we have Diaz and Grilli in the rotation at the same time? Was that really going to hold up in a playoff run, regardless of having Maggs + Frank?

Like I said, we're primed for a playoff run, but it's not even June yet.

And gobears, what the heck are you talking about he doesn't care about pitching? Obviously, he does enough to have drafted Huston Street a year or two ago with a first round comp pick (IIRC), as well as (in the Mulder/Huddy trades) get back both teams' top pitching prospects in Meyer and Haren. Same goes for Rich Harden who was doing pretty friggin' good until he went down with injury...

gosox41
05-30-2005, 07:55 PM
The payroll increases in the past are misleading. Most of those payroll increases were to incorporate contracts where players make more money later in their deals. Most players have deals like Freddy Garcia's where they have something like 8 million the first year, 9 the 2nd, and 10 the 3rd. The payhroll increases were to incorporate those deals, not for new acquisitions. All of that changed this year and JR gave KW the budget to get the pitching that he always wanted.

And back on BB. Sure he did put some good seasons together, but I don't count them. Why? Can anyone say steroids? I mean the A's have had McGuire, Canseco, and Giambi. They were the reason that the A's were able to win. Now that roids are disappearing, it is pitching that will win championships. Someone needs to tell this to Beane. He is living in the 90s and seems to have missed the lessons to be learned from the Marlins that pitching wins. If batting were the key as Beane thinks, then the Rangers would be in 1st place every year as they consistently put good hitters on the field but lack the great pitching (unless we play them.)

IIRC, we had a thread during ST from a WSI member who met a scout from the A's. It appears the A's don't believe SBs mean anything in baseball. This is just ignorance. Any person with a brain can see that having Podsednik on base isn't just good because he steals. It is good because it messes with the pitcher's mind. Remember that Jays game where he had 4 SBs. The pitcher was so worried about Pods that he was giving fastballs to PK. PK ended up with 2 HRs as a result. It appears Billy Beane and the A's just don't understand fundamental baseball.


An increase in payroll is an increase in payroll anyway you look at it.

Also, Beane wasn't GM when Canseco was there and just came on board when McGwire was trade. But you're right about Giambi.


Bob

CWSGuy406
05-30-2005, 11:56 PM
-
- He's also one of very few GMs to have their top 2 players get hurt in 2 of 4 years, something Beane never went through (Well/Thomas in 2001 and Thomas/Maggs in 2004). You can argue "staying power" all you want, but the team that KW put together last year was one of the best in baseball through June when the injuries hit - so the results that exist contradict you.


Oh, don't give me that. Injuries happen to every team. Oakland lost about 75 AB's from Eric Chavez last year, 6-7 starts from Tim Hudson, and had Mark Mulder pitching with a hip problem. And they still won 91 games in a division better than last year's AL Central, on a payroll much less than the winner's (Anahiem's). You want to blame last year's missing of the playoffs on injuries? Fine. But don't then go and turn your back on Oakland's problems, either. :rolleyes:

FarWestChicago
05-31-2005, 12:01 AM
Oh, don't give me that. Injuries happen to every team. Oakland lost about 75 AB's from Eric Chavez last year, 6-7 starts from Tim Hudson, and had Mark Mulder pitching with a hip problem. And they still won 91 games in a division better than last year's AL Central, on a payroll much less than the winner's (Anahiem's). You want to blame last year's missing of the playoffs on injuries? Fine. But don't then go and turn your back on Oakland's problems, either. :rolleyes:Would you like me to change your username to A'sGuy406? You would think you FOBB's could contain yourselves while your beloved team is 17-32, but I guess that's expecting a bit too much from the true devotees. :rolleyes:

voodoochile
05-31-2005, 12:04 AM
Oh, don't give me that. Injuries happen to every team. Oakland lost about 75 AB's from Eric Chavez last year, 6-7 starts from Tim Hudson, and had Mark Mulder pitching with a hip problem. And they still won 91 games in a division better than last year's AL Central, on a payroll much less than the winner's (Anahiem's). You want to blame last year's missing of the playoffs on injuries? Fine. But don't then go and turn your back on Oakland's problems, either. :rolleyes:

Was this supposed to be in teal?

You honestly want to equate the problems you stated to Frank playing in 75 games last season and Maggs playing in 52 (or something)?

6-7 starts?
75 AB?

Frank and Maggs combined to miss something like 800 AB last season which given their numbers is something in the order of 50+ HR, 150 RBI, 150R and the team still won 83 games.

Oh that's right... I forgot... Mulder had an owie...:rolleyes:

CWSGuy406
05-31-2005, 12:44 AM
Was this supposed to be in teal?

You honestly want to equate the problems you stated to Frank playing in 75 games last season and Maggs playing in 52 (or something)?

6-7 starts?
75 AB?

Frank and Maggs combined to miss something like 800 AB last season which given their numbers is something in the order of 50+ HR, 150 RBI, 150R and the team still won 83 games.

Oh that's right... I forgot... Mulder had an owie...:rolleyes:

We had a healthy Frank in 2003. We had a healthy Maggs in 2003. We had (arguably) a better pitching staff, with Colon pitching much better down the stretch, Loaiza doing his 20-game-winner thing, and Buehrle recovering from a poor first half. We had (arguably) a better bullpen, with Marte-Gordon-Wunsch. Yet we still didn't win the division...

A healthy Frank and Maggs certainly would have helped our chances last year, but it didn't ensure a division title.

FWC, I feared it would come to this -- labeling (the whole FOBB stuff) and put downs (Would you like me to change your username to A'sGuy406?) rather than refuting facts. Fine, I shall go back to my lurking.

To a successful White Sox 2005 season. :gulp:

(And, by successful, I mean playoffs and beyond, just incase there was to be any twisting of that.)

EDIT: Voodoo, I don't think I'm the one who brought up the injuries. I believe Flight brought it up, not me. I spoke about it just to let Flight know that it wasn't like Oakland went through the season without any bumps in the road either.

FarWestChicago
05-31-2005, 12:52 AM
Fine, I shall go back to my lurking.If all you can do is spew FOBB crap and A's love on a Sox board and act horribly wronged when called out for it, that might be best. The offer to change your username for you still stands.

BTW, 17-32 is a fact. :redneck

jabrch
05-31-2005, 01:22 AM
If all you can do is spew FOBB crap and A's love on a Sox board and act horribly wronged when called out for it, that might be best. The offer to change your username for you still stands.

BTW, 17-32 is a fact. :redneck

LOL...

When I started this thread, I forgot that all the FOBB would show up in force. 17-32, and falling fast!!!!

Banix12
05-31-2005, 02:07 AM
We had a healthy Frank in 2003. We had a healthy Maggs in 2003. We had (arguably) a better pitching staff, with Colon pitching much better down the stretch, Loaiza doing his 20-game-winner thing, and Buehrle recovering from a poor first half. We had (arguably) a better bullpen, with Marte-Gordon-Wunsch. Yet we still didn't win the division...

A healthy Frank and Maggs certainly would have helped our chances last year, but it didn't ensure a division title.

FWC, I feared it would come to this -- labeling (the whole FOBB stuff) and put downs (Would you like me to change your username to A'sGuy406?) rather than refuting facts. Fine, I shall go back to my lurking.

To a successful White Sox 2005 season. :gulp:

(And, by successful, I mean playoffs and beyond, just incase there was to be any twisting of that.)

EDIT: Voodoo, I don't think I'm the one who brought up the injuries. I believe Flight brought it up, not me. I spoke about it just to let Flight know that it wasn't like Oakland went through the season without any bumps in the road either.


I think what can be clear from the various successes and failures from the Sox and Oakland over the past five years that the major reason Oakland was better over that period has very little do do with draft picks and a book.

The core of Oakland's team was just superior to the Sox. The 2000 sox were a fluke because that rotation did way better than they ever should have then they all got injured and there were a bunch of position players (singleton, perry, valentin) who played well above their ability.

So KW took that 95-win success as a sign of good things to come and tried to stick pieces to the puzzle around the core of hitters. They were snakebit with a few injuries and a few trades that never panned out, but when it comes down to it, that core of players the sox had just weren't as good together as that 95 win team showed.

Meanwhile the core of Oakland's run were the three great pitchers, surround that with two AL MVP's over that period who helped carry the offense and you have a much more successful team. I give Beane credit for finding inexpensive role players who can work around that core, he is a good GM.

As for Beane vs. KW, I think both are better than average GM's. I think KW gets a raw deal a little bit since he did take over after the 2000 season and expectations were much higher during the period where he was learning how to do his job. Certainly he made some mistakes but no doubt the scrutiny on a rookie GM starting his job a year after a division title must be huge.

When Beane took over as A's GM he had the luxury of low expecations and a lousy team, he could fly a little under the radar. That isn't to slight what Beane did with the A's, he did a very good job with them and used the farm system correctly to build a winner. I'm just saying the pressures were different and Kenny was likely limited in what he actually could do at first because of the high expectations at the time and at the time 2000 Manager of the Year Jerry Manuel probably had a lot more power than the rookie GM.

I will also say that I beleive Beane considers this a rebuilding year anyway and was not expecting his team to be all that great this season. i think he actually doesn't beleive the A's will be any good for a couple of years until he beleives the young talent will mature. though I'm sure he thought they would be better than what they have actually done. I would say most of the pressure on the A's to succeed this year is coming from overzealous journalists (I'm looking at you Baseball Prospectus) who really buy into his style and want the A's to succeed more than anything, to prove that the Sabremetrics system is the best way.

voodoochile
05-31-2005, 09:06 AM
We had a healthy Frank in 2003. We had a healthy Maggs in 2003. We had (arguably) a better pitching staff, with Colon pitching much better down the stretch, Loaiza doing his 20-game-winner thing, and Buehrle recovering from a poor first half. We had (arguably) a better bullpen, with Marte-Gordon-Wunsch. Yet we still didn't win the division...

A healthy Frank and Maggs certainly would have helped our chances last year, but it didn't ensure a division title.

FWC, I feared it would come to this -- labeling (the whole FOBB stuff) and put downs (Would you like me to change your username to A'sGuy406?) rather than refuting facts. Fine, I shall go back to my lurking.

To a successful White Sox 2005 season. :gulp:

(And, by successful, I mean playoffs and beyond, just incase there was to be any twisting of that.)

EDIT: Voodoo, I don't think I'm the one who brought up the injuries. I believe Flight brought it up, not me. I spoke about it just to let Flight know that it wasn't like Oakland went through the season without any bumps in the road either.

You are correct, the A's hit a few bumps. The Sox on the other hand ran off a cliff. I was merely pointing out the difference in the respected injuries you were referring to. They weren't even close to being similar. I thought FOBB's were all about the stats. How can you honestly even start to compare the injuries (and stat loss) you brought up with what the Sox went through last year?

Flight #24
05-31-2005, 09:28 AM
You are correct, the A's hit a few bumps. The Sox on the other hand ran off a cliff. I was merely pointing out the difference in the respected injuries you were referring to. They weren't even close to being similar. I thought FOBB's were all about the stats. How can you honestly even start to compare the injuries (and stat loss) you brought up with what the Sox went through last year?

100% correct. What the A's went through is similar to what most teams go through, where various players miss 15-20 games here and there. What the Sox went through in 2001 and 2004 is quite unusual (let alone twice in 4 years), where arguably the top 2 players on the team both miss 50-70% of the season.

It's interesting to note that CWSGuy even invalidates his own argument somewhat - We had a healthy Frank in 2003. We had a healthy Maggs in 2003. We had (arguably) a better pitching staff, with Colon pitching much better down the stretch, Loaiza doing his 20-game-winner thing, and Buehrle recovering from a poor first half. We had (arguably) a better bullpen, with Marte-Gordon-Wunsch. Yet we still didn't win the division...

So the 2003 team apparently had a ton of offensive talent, studly starting pitching (at least at the top of the rotation), and a good bullpen. If a highly talented and on paper, balanced team doesnt win, isn't that on the manager? The GM can only put the talent on the field, which as you note - KW did. If you want to argue that Manuel being there is KW's fault, that's a different story, but most understand that that's more JR's call on firing him.

CWSGuy406
05-31-2005, 10:31 AM
BTW, 17-32 is a fact. :redneck

As is zero playoff appearances under Kenny's tenure.

Banix, awesome post. Very objective, and fair. I appreciate your argument without using something witty like FOBB to get a laugh. Thanks. :smile: :cheers:

fquaye149
05-31-2005, 11:04 AM
As is zero playoff appearances under Kenny's tenure.

Banix, awesome post. Very objective, and fair. I appreciate your argument without using something witty like FOBB to get a laugh. Thanks. :smile: :cheers:

except that this is when KW has to put up or shut up. So there is no fact yet in this season.

FOBB to get a laugh. LOL. It is pretty funny that someone would devote their sox fanhood to a middling GM

Hangar18
05-31-2005, 11:43 AM
And, if all you have to respond with is "oh, you're just a FOBB, you're stupid, and you're Athletics' team sucks", then don't respond at all (not saying you did that, FWC).

heh heh.

Baby Fisk
05-31-2005, 11:59 AM
Putting all the hype and debate aside, it must be heartbreaking (or rage-inducing) for A's fans to see the Tejadas, Mulders and Hudsons of the world cruising along in first place while their team sucks rocks.

maurice
05-31-2005, 12:59 PM
This is daft. When Moneyball came out, very many people predicted that the thesis was bogus and that BB would not be able to win without the Big 3, notwithstanding the A's inordinate number of high draft picks. Current events have proven that the Moneyball critics were correct. QED.

Hangar18
05-31-2005, 01:42 PM
The core of Oakland's team was just superior to the Sox. The 2000 sox were a fluke because that rotation did way better than they ever should have then they all got injured and there were a bunch of position players (singleton, perry, valentin) who played well above their ability.

I would say most of the pressure on the A's to succeed this year is coming from overzealous journalists (I'm looking at you Baseball Prospectus) who really buy into his style and want the A's to succeed more than anything, to prove that the Sabremetrics system is the best way.

YES, the SOX staff overachieved and four-fifths got hurt. Our mistake was going into 2001 thinking all we needed was David Wells, when we shouldve been thinking how blessed we were to have a team that could hit. A little pitching wouldve had us on top for a while.

Your absolutely right about the "overzealous Journalists", kind of reminds me of the Chicago Media ..........

Jerome
05-31-2005, 01:56 PM
They may have reached the major leagues but so did guys like Scott Ruffcorn and Shawn Abner. Reaching the majors is not the utimate test by which a good draft is measured, the impact of those players and how well they play is the ultimate test of how successful your draft was. Certainly getting to the majors gives them a leg up over a lot of other players who never did, but success is measured in production, not by just being there.

By Oakland getting players to the league faster than any other team, the A's right now have the best draft of that year by default, not because we know it was a good draft but because we have nothing to compare it to yet. Over time it might not be the best draft once other teams start bringing their players to the league.

Most other teams have the luxury of time in developing players, Oakland doesn't. They need their farm system to develop faster than a lot of other teams because they have to replace the free agents they lose because they can't afford them.

I'm not making any assumptions as to the success of the players because of their limited experience in the majors so far. If we did that we would take players like Jason Bere and Jerome Walton and say they were amazing successes because of their first year performances instead of the dissapointments they were over the total of their careers. Likewise with guys like Doug Davis in Milwaukee, who seemed to be a failure but now seems to be getting his career together.

I agree 100% with you. But this thread is bashing the moneyball draft. So i just wanted to point out that none of the other drafts from any other major league team are any good at this point either. Wait at least a few years before saying how much a draft sucks.

CWSGuy406
05-31-2005, 02:07 PM
FOBB to get a laugh. LOL. It is pretty funny that someone would devote their sox fanhood to a middling GM

I don't though, I rarely watch the A's (MLB Extra Package). I mean, I watched them the other night because the pitching matchup intrigued me (Kazmir vs Blanton), but I've never turned off a Sox game to watch an A's game, nor am I an A's fan. I came in when gobears made a dumb comment by calling Beane a "moron", which, in all fairness, you can't really say...

fquaye149
05-31-2005, 02:20 PM
I don't though, I rarely watch the A's (MLB Extra Package). I mean, I watched them the other night because the pitching matchup intrigued me (Kazmir vs Blanton), but I've never turned off a Sox game to watch an A's game, nor am I an A's fan. I came in when gobears made a dumb comment by calling Beane a "moron", which, in all fairness, you can't really say...

I've never actually called someone a FOBB, much less you. However, if someone were (and I do have my suspicions about some "members" of this site, I think it'd be rather funny.

Flight #24
05-31-2005, 03:04 PM
Back on topic, looks like the initial success from the Moneyball draft was Swisher, Blanton, and Teahen - all of whom are struggling to put it mildly (but yes, it's early).

Meanwhile, another team has had a bit of success from that draft.....Jeremy Reed was traded for a stud pitcher, and Brandon McCarthy has looked decent or better depending on your POV.

Who woud you rather have - Swisher, Blanton, & Teahen - or Garcia & McCarthy? I'll take the latter, thank you very much. Looks like KW is indeed the idiot he's made out to be!

Banix12
05-31-2005, 04:37 PM
Back on topic, looks like the initial success from the Moneyball draft was Swisher, Blanton, and Teahen - all of whom are struggling to put it mildly (but yes, it's early).

Meanwhile, another team has had a bit of success from that draft.....Jeremy Reed was traded for a stud pitcher, and Brandon McCarthy has looked decent or better depending on your POV.

Who woud you rather have - Swisher, Blanton, & Teahen - or Garcia & McCarthy? I'll take the latter, thank you very much. Looks like KW is indeed the idiot he's made out to be!

I decided to look through Moneyball last night, just to get a feel for who was picked in that draft. There are so far a few guys who look to be pretty good picks. Zack Greinke of the Royals being the best so far i would say. kahlil Greene has done a decent job with the Padres. Not sure about the rest of their picks since I haven't really looked at all the players but those seem to be the best to come out of it so far.

I understand what moneyball is all about, it's trying to insert some risk management into a draft that has always been considered a crapshoot. All and all that's a good idea and the theories are interesting and warrant a try.

But I think the best they can do is turn what has been a crapshoot into a game of high/low. figure out the odds of the players making the majors and playing successfully and pick the players with the greatest chance of succeeding. However that's still not a guarantee of success and there is ultimately two possible outcomes when you draft a young player, success or failure. A team picking with this method would also stray away from the high risk/high reward guys, so they will miss the players like Zack Greinke but they will also avoid drafting disasters like Josh Hamilton, or any number of Devil Rays picks.

Even if the Moneyball draft players don't pan out to be great players, I think it is gonna take more than one draft to test whether this system works, or if it is an absolute failure, or if it can work but it just needs some tweaking. It's gonna take about 5-10 drafts to really see if it is leaps and bounds better than the old system, what can be done to improve it, or whether it should be scrapped.

I also think a lot of the A's/moneyball fans need to realize that for the last few years the A's had some special players in the core of that team, and while the players that make up the A's now might eventually be good players they still might not ever reach that level of acheivement that the old players did. Then again they may surpass it, unfortunately that's still kinda a crapshoot.

maurice
05-31-2005, 04:54 PM
If the Moneyball draft doesn't pan out for the A's, despite something like 47 1st round draft picks, I'd say that it's a pretty damning indictment of the BB "system" of drafting players. IMHO, it will be equally damning if the only players who pan out are the guys any other GM would have taken high in the draft, since Lewis' thesis was that BB used his superior brain power to pick guys who were not valued under traditional scouting systems.

Baby Fisk
05-31-2005, 05:02 PM
True story: on another message board, a FOBB posted the argument that the BoSox championship of 2004 was a victory for Moneyball, as Theo is one of BB's well-known disciples. Discuss.

voodoochile
05-31-2005, 05:12 PM
True story: on another message board, a FOBB posted the argument that the BoSox championship of 2004 was a victory for Moneyball, as Theo is one of BB's well-known disciples. Discuss.

I always thought it was a victory for deep pockets and the concept of having two ace pitchers. If that is Moneyball then count me in...

fquaye149
05-31-2005, 05:19 PM
I always thought it was a victory for deep pockets and the concept of having two ace pitchers. If that is Moneyball then count me in...

not to mention you don't need moneyball to tell you manny and ortiz are great hitter.

what is it the OBP or the MASHING?