PDA

View Full Version : What about the FOBB?


balke
09-30-2005, 10:35 AM
I remember when all the FOBB's were saying that Oakland was a lock for the Wild Card, and that the Sox "Didn't want to face them" in the playoffs. Well, the hot streak hath ended. Where is your BEANE-GOD now?

34 Inch Stick
09-30-2005, 12:27 PM
I am no fan of Beane but they made a nice run for a team in a rebuilding year. They are poised for the future. If I were an owner I would consider him to have done an excellent job this year.

DMarte708
09-30-2005, 12:35 PM
I am no fan of Beane but they made a nice run for a team in a rebuilding year. They are poised for the future. If I were an owner I would consider him to have done an excellent job this year.

Well, FOBB would have been praised him regardless of how the team finished. If they contend, it's "He did a good job rebuilding. No one expected them to do this well." If they lose, the excuse shifts to, "You can't expect immediate results from this group. Give him a year or two."

I'm glad we don't have to hear anything relating to that team for another year. Although I may have a little fun if the Sox move into the ALCS. How many ALCS' has Beane been in again?

chitownhawkfan
09-30-2005, 06:14 PM
Where is your BEANE-GOD now?

With your permission I might have to make this my new sig
:rolling:

hose
09-30-2005, 06:48 PM
You're missing the whole point of Beane's genius.

Oakland will get a better draft choice by finishing lower.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-30-2005, 06:52 PM
You're missing the whole point of Beane's genius.

Oakland will get a better draft choice by finishing lower.

Baseball Prospectus is probably calculating the win-shares this represents to Beane & Co. right now.

:wink:

JRIG
09-30-2005, 07:01 PM
I remember when all the FOBB's were saying that Oakland was a lock for the Wild Card, and that the Sox "Didn't want to face them" in the playoffs. Well, the hot streak hath ended. Where is your BEANE-GOD now?

All due respect, I don't think it was the FOBB that were saying the Sox didn't want to face the A's. It was White Sox fans who looked at the Sox record against the A's and thought we would have trouble with them.

I didn't agree with that then, and I don't agree with that now. There's no reason the Sox wouldn't have matched up just fine against the A's.

But it's a moot point now. The Sox are in, the A's are not, and we wait to see who we face it the first round. It definitely won't be Oakland!

SouthSide_HitMen
09-30-2005, 07:13 PM
I think Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro & Terri Ryan are very good GMs with low payrolls who do a good job with limited resources - close to 1/2 our payroll. Kenny Williams is also a very good GM who has done an awesome job this season (should be Executive of the Year) and a very good job the other years. He built a team arguably better than the Yankees and Boston with a fraction of their resources.

I agree BP gets ridiculous with their worship of all things Billy Beane (including DePodesta & JP Riccardi) and some fans go a little overboard. But I think they do a very good job.

jabrch
09-30-2005, 08:07 PM
Simply put, between Beane, Depodesta, Ricardi and Epstein, it is entirely possible that they have 0 teams in the playoffs. At most, they will have 1 (which has the second highest payroll in the game).


The entire concept of using statistics over traditional baseball knowledge is ridiculous.

SoxSpeed22
09-30-2005, 08:22 PM
The entire concept of using statistics over traditional baseball knowledge is ridiculous.I don't exactly agree with that, even though it was fun while it lasted. LA is just too good for them. I like their method of drafting pitchers, no one can argue with that.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-30-2005, 08:23 PM
The entire concept of using statistics over traditional baseball knowledge is ridiculous.

Actually both are used (scouting and statistics). Anyone who depends on one and shuns the other will be disappointed.

chitownhawkfan
09-30-2005, 09:42 PM
The entire concept of using statistics over traditional baseball knowledge is ridiculous.

I think what jabrch was saying is not to ignore things like BA but that baseball isn't a game for number crunching nerdlingers. If it were Bill James would win the series every year, but luckily he doesnt. Sabermetrics became this pseudo religion that would fix everything. Sometimes stealing bases is good, bunting is useful, hitting and running etc. The FOBB have placed him on this high altar that he could do no wrong, give me a break. These sabermetric people make it seem like we haven't learned a single thing about the game in the 100 years previous to Bill James.

Linear Weights measurements dont guarantee winning!

jabrch
10-01-2005, 11:16 AM
I think what jabrch was saying is not to ignore things like BA but that baseball isn't a game for number crunching nerdlingers. If it were Bill James would win the series every year, but luckily he doesnt. Sabermetrics became this pseudo religion that would fix everything. Sometimes stealing bases is good, bunting is useful, hitting and running etc. The FOBB have placed him on this high altar that he could do no wrong, give me a break. These sabermetric people make it seem like we haven't learned a single thing about the game in the 100 years previous to Bill James.

Linear Weights measurements dont guarantee winning!

Exactly. Statistics have long been a PART of the game. The game has used sensible, logical statistics that actually measure things forever. However, some dopes have decided that statistics alone can be used to measure players, teams, etc. You can create a team on a spreadsheet, they believe, that can beat a team on a field. You can get the highest collections of VORPs and WARPs and not worry about who is going to lead off. You shouldn't "give up outs" because that will reduce your chance of scoring every time. SBs reduce your chance of scoring. etc. etc.

Statistics are important to the game. avg, obp, slg, ERA, etc... I even buy into some of the new stats that are being considered. But to run a professional baseball team solely on the basis of these stats is just plain stupid. Traditional baseball skills still will beat out a calculator. Just look...

Not only did the 3 Moneyball GMs (exclude Theo and his 150mm band of merry men who are still contenders) not make the playoffs, but there is not one of those franchises that looks like a lock to be any better next season. Yes, that includes the (assumedly steroid free) As who still can't find a way to score runs consistently (8 runs on Monday and 0 runs on Tuesday is worse than 4 runs each day).

fquaye149
10-01-2005, 11:21 AM
Simply put, between Beane, Depodesta, Ricardi and Epstein, it is entirely possible that they have 0 teams in the playoffs. At most, they will have 1 (which has the second highest payroll in the game).


The entire concept of using statistics over traditional baseball knowledge is ridiculous.

Let's not get carried away - Beane has been successful and will continue to be successful because he recognizes the value of pitching and recognizes good pitching. That team will be pretty good in years to come for no other reason but that pitching. Props to him for that.

If you notice, Epstein's shortcomings as a GM have been in pitching - he built a lousy staff. Oops. Maybe not making the playoffs this year. Well....that's the problem with SABRmetrics - it's hard to measure good pitching with statistics.

jabrch
10-01-2005, 11:45 AM
Let's not get carried away - Beane has been successful and will continue to be successful because he recognizes the value of pitching and recognizes good pitching. That team will be pretty good in years to come for no other reason but that pitching. Props to him for that.


Agreed...but none of his teams will ever win anything as long as they stick to mathematically generated fallacies like [generalizing] bunting and stealing are bad, sacrificing is stupid, strikeouts don't matter, etc...

In any case, he's home watching. And next year, his offense projects to be equally poor as it was this year.

chitownhawkfan
10-01-2005, 12:54 PM
Yes, that includes the (assumedly steroid free) As who still can't find a way to score runs consistently (8 runs on Monday and 0 runs on Tuesday is worse than 4 runs each day).

This isn't true until Bill James and the rest of his desk jockey brethren make up some new stat to support it. *teal*

downstairs
10-01-2005, 05:45 PM
I don't understand why White Sox fans bash the Billy Beanes of the world.

Lets face it, all teams still have to prove themselves on the field. GM's and owners have nothing but stats and/or money to build a team. They cannot play.

Right now, in baseball, your options are to either:

1. Build a team purely with money

2. Build a team of cheaper players based off finding diamonds-in-the-rough through stats

3. Be a Tampa or Kansas City and just not field a team

That's all owners and GM's can do. They can't build chemestry, they can't "just want it more".

The fact that Oakland can contend every year (and they do) to get into the playoffs along with teams that just buy their way in is a good thing, as far as I am concerned.

Secondly... when it comes to stats... everyone here seems to bash Beane for using specific stats and specific interpretations of stats. That's fine. But even assuming he's not doing a perfect job with the numbers doesn't lessen the overall concept that stats can help you build a good team when you don't have money to make it easy.

You may disagree that, for example, stolen bases are useless. But you gotta agree that there ARE forumulas that CAN work both on paper and in the field.

fquaye149
10-01-2005, 05:57 PM
Lets face it, all teams still have to prove themselves on the field. GM's and owners have nothing but stats and/or money to build a team. They cannot play.

Right now, in baseball, your options are to either:

1. Build a team purely with money

2. Build a team of cheaper players based off finding diamonds-in-the-rough through stats

3. Be a Tampa or Kansas City and just not field a team


This post right here goes a long way to explaining why a lot of posters here hate SABRmetricians and FOBB's. Basically you're saying the only way to do things are Beane's way or Cashman's way. Sorry. That's not the case.

KW fielded a division champion this year. He certainly did not do that through number one's method nor number two's. There are better ways to do things than looking at stats. BP and BA ripped us for replacing Lee with Podsednik. Ignoring the salary room it gave us, it still isn't even as cut dry as Lee is better than Pods.

They are both good players, but Pods changed the look of the team with speed and on base at the top of the order. Only half of that is apparent through stats.

However, friends of BB seem to think if you don't look at stats and you don't buy a team you're just fielding an also ran. Sorry...that's going to create a little bit of hostility between the fans of the Sox (who are headed by KW...who actually won his division despite using the method that "should field a team like KC or TB's") and fans of Beane (who is not in the playoffs this year, no matter what the future may or may not hold for him).

Come off it, please. There are tons of ways to field good teams, not all of them relying on stats. Terri Ryan is not a stat head - he relies on good deals, building from the ground up, and good fundamental baseball. Schuerholz has money, but has more success than Minaya and Phillips had with much more resources. Schuerholz relies on talent and coaching to build his team.

It's certainly not as cut dry as "you're either a Cashman or a Beane of a Lamar"

FarWestChicago
10-01-2005, 06:06 PM
This post right here goes a long way to explaining why a lot of posters here hate SABRmetricians and FOBB's. Basically you're saying the only way to do things are Beane's way or Cashman's way. Sorry. That's not the case.:thumbsup:

RedPinStripes
10-01-2005, 06:16 PM
What's cashman's way?


Stienbrenner:

"Here's 200 million dollars. I want you to get this guy, this guy, these 5, and that guy. If they want more money , give it to them, if you can't sign them, your're fired!"

Cashman:

Yes sir boss!


Cashman is just a mouth piece for the boss and the fall guy when the plan don't work.

SABRSox
10-01-2005, 06:23 PM
I really hate this endless, pointless debate between scouting and statistics. It's always the same, unresolvable argument that has a simple solution: a marriage of the two.

The teams that will be most successful in the future will be the ones with a combination of the best scouting system and the best SABRmetrics system. You have to look at it as a sort of checks and balances system that attempts to reduce the risk of acquiring bad talent as much as possible. You can get equally bad players by going a purely SABR method (Mark Bellhorn) as you can a purely scouting method (Joe Borchard). Had any of these teams had a SABR and scouting checks and balances system, scouting would have told you that Mark Bellhorn can't hit for average, drive in runs, etc., and sabermetrics would have told you that Joe Borchard strikes out way too much to ever be a quality MLB player.

I think the problem with the FOBB's are that they think the White Sox need to adopt the Beane methods to win. That's not the case, as this season has proved. A GM can win in a multitude of ways. I personally think an equally minded scouting and sabrmetrics GM will prevail more likely than not, but that's just my opinion.

Daver
10-01-2005, 06:26 PM
I don't understand why White Sox fans bash the Billy Beanes of the world.

Lets face it, all teams still have to prove themselves on the field. GM's and owners have nothing but stats and/or money to build a team. They cannot play.

Right now, in baseball, your options are to either:

1. Build a team purely with money

2. Build a team of cheaper players based off finding diamonds-in-the-rough through stats

3. Be a Tampa or Kansas City and just not field a team

That's all owners and GM's can do. They can't build chemestry, they can't "just want it more".




You're dead wrong.

Terry Ryan has built a consistent winning team in Minnesota with a payroll similar to that of Oakland's, and he has done it by exhaustive scouting of amateur players and building through the draft. The vast majority of the Twins roster are players developed by their minor league system, they draft smartly, they develop their own talent, and they move them through their system based on baseball skill, not by how well they hit or how fast their fastball clocks at on the gun.

fquaye149
10-01-2005, 06:29 PM
What's cashman's way?


Stienbrenner:

"Here's 200 million dollars. I want you to get this guy, this guy, these 5, and that guy. If they want more money , give it to them, if you can't sign them, your're fired!"

Cashman:

Yes sir boss!


Cashman is just a mouth piece for the boss and the fall guy when the plan don't work.

pretty much. remember: point one this guys made was : to be a successful GM, just buy a ballclub

chitownhawkfan
10-01-2005, 07:14 PM
You're dead wrong.

Terry Ryan has built a consistent winning team in Minnesota with a payroll similar to that of Oakland's, and he has done it by exhaustive scouting of amateur players and building through the draft. The vast majority of the Twins roster are players developed by their minor league system, they draft smartly, they develop their own talent, and they move them through their system based on baseball skill, not by how well they hit or how fast their fastball clocks at on the gun.

What a crazy concept, scouting, building a team based on fundamentals. But there's no stat for that! I mean its only worked since the inception of professional baseball you bunch of ignorant fools!

PokerChamp
10-01-2005, 07:22 PM
This post right here goes a long way to explaining why a lot of posters here hate SABRmetricians and FOBB's. Basically you're saying the only way to do things are Beane's way or Cashman's way. Sorry. That's not the case.

KW fielded a division champion this year. He certainly did not do that through number one's method nor number two's. There are better ways to do things than looking at stats. BP and BA ripped us for replacing Lee with Podsednik. Ignoring the salary room it gave us, it still isn't even as cut dry as Lee is better than Pods.

They are both good players, but Pods changed the look of the team with speed and on base at the top of the order. Only half of that is apparent through stats.

However, friends of BB seem to think if you don't look at stats and you don't buy a team you're just fielding an also ran. Sorry...that's going to create a little bit of hostility between the fans of the Sox (who are headed by KW...who actually won his division despite using the method that "should field a team like KC or TB's") and fans of Beane (who is not in the playoffs this year, no matter what the future may or may not hold for him).

Come off it, please. There are tons of ways to field good teams, not all of them relying on stats. Terri Ryan is not a stat head - he relies on good deals, building from the ground up, and good fundamental baseball. Schuerholz has money, but has more success than Minaya and Phillips had with much more resources. Schuerholz relies on talent and coaching to build his team.

It's certainly not as cut dry as "you're either a Cashman or a Beane of a Lamar"


I would think that Williams uses some stats just like Beane probably sees players play. Did he wind up firing the whole scouting department like he wanted?

The FOBB vs. Beaner bashers is kind of funny. Give Beane credit for being good at his job, but he is far from a god. How many people thought the A's would be awful this year because he traded away his 2 aces? I did. I've been lurking and remember seeing posts like that.

But it is fun to watch both the arguments here and the A's. They do OK for a limited payroll. At least their not the laughingstock of the league like Pittsburgh, KC, and Tampa.


Mike

TornLabrum
10-01-2005, 08:00 PM
Terri Ryan

Did he have an operation I wasn't aware of?

JorgeFabregas
10-01-2005, 11:00 PM
2. Build a team of cheaper players based off finding diamonds-in-the-rough through stats

There are other ways of finding bargains than stats, though. Kenny Williams didn't get Jermaine Dye at a bargain because other teams didn't realize he was talented or because they used different statistical methods. He got Jermaine Dye at a bargain because he was willing to take a risk on his health. Nor am I guessing they came up with some sabermetric that no one else had for evaluation Iguchi...they were just willing to scout him on video. You didn't need to be a stathead to know that AJ was a good player, but you did need be willing to take a risk on a "clubhouse cancer" to sign him.

Jerome
10-02-2005, 12:44 AM
When the A's were going thru that amazing hot streak, lets be honest, who wasn't worried about them. I know I was. With that offense though, they don't deserve to make the playoffs. That offense has wasted a lot of good pitching performances this year.

PS, the Angels are 40 million dollars more expensive than the A's. There are some STUDS on that Angels team. I think the Angel's should be praised, the A's shouldn't be bashed.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-02-2005, 09:38 AM
When the A's were going thru that amazing hot streak, lets be honest, who wasn't worried about them. I know I was. With that offense though, they don't deserve to make the playoffs. That offense has wasted a lot of good pitching performances this year...

I wasn't worried about them. Honest injun. Go back and read my posts, not just from last June, but July and August too.

If you were worried about Oakland last June it was only born of your ignorance for the nature of a 6-month 162-game baseball season.

I said they would choke and they did. Now go away with your ridiculous rationalizations for being a coward.

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2005, 10:57 AM
When the A's were going thru that amazing hot streak, lets be honest, who wasn't worried about them. I know I was. With that offense though, they don't deserve to make the playoffs. That offense has wasted a lot of good pitching performances this year.

PS, the Angels are 40 million dollars more expensive than the A's. There are some STUDS on that Angels team. I think the Angel's should be praised, the A's shouldn't be bashed.They call it a Championship Season for a reason. You don't win it by having a hot streak. You win it by being consistently good over 162 games. If the Indians get eliminated today, be prepared for a lot of garbage from the "experts" about how they lost out because they weren't good enough over the last 7 games. You'd think guys who played the game for a number of years would know better. If the Indians get eliminated, it won't be because they weren't good enough over the last 7 games. It will be because they weren't good enough over the first 155 games.

How many times have you seen the Aug 1 standings quoted:

Chicago 69-35
Cleveland 55-51 15.0 GB

Of course, all they focus on is the 15 games lead that the Sox had. No one ever mentions that with 60% of the season gone, the Indians were barely above .500. THAT is why they may be booking tee times after today.

TornLabrum
10-02-2005, 11:00 AM
They call it a Championship Season for a reason. You don't win it by having a hot streak. You win it by being consistently good over 162 games. If the Indians get eliminated today, be prepared for a lot of garbage from the "experts" about how they lost out because they weren't good enough over the last 7 games. You'd think guys who played the game for a number of years would know better. If the Indians get eliminated, it won't be because they weren't good enough over the last 7 games. It will be because they weren't good enough over the first 155 games.

How many times have you seen the Aug 1 standings quoted:

Chicago 69-35
Cleveland 55-51 15.0 GB

Of course, all they focus on is the 15 games lead that the Sox had. No one ever mentions that with 60% of the season gone, the Indians were barely above .500. THAT is why they may be booking tee times after today.

In the column I just emailed George, I likened it to the Sox starting out a race traveling at about 70 mph while the Indians were doing about 50. Then at the halfway point the Sox slowed down to about 55 while the Indians sped up to about 70.

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2005, 11:04 AM
In the column I just emailed George, I likened it to the Sox starting out a race traveling at about 70 mph while the Indians were doing about 50. Then at the halfway point the Sox slowed down to about 55 while the Indians sped up to about 70.Good analogy. But it wasn't even that good. The Indians really didn't start playing well until 2/3 of the way through the season.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-02-2005, 12:18 PM
How many times have you seen the Aug 1 standings quoted:

Chicago 69-35
Cleveland 55-51 15.0 GB

Of course, all they focus on is the 15 games lead that the Sox had.

If we had one more week left on the schedule would could have rebuilt a lead close to the "sacred" 15 games we held two months prior.

Lets go White Sox - Sweep the Toons and Bring on the Red Cubs!!!

jabrch
10-02-2005, 12:30 PM
I really hate this endless, pointless debate between scouting and statistics. It's always the same, unresolvable argument that has a simple solution: a marriage of the two.

And that is how teams have been run for the majority of the history of the game. Using some sensible and meaningful stats, along with the required traditional scouting. Very few people who destest Beane and his spouted nonsense would say that you should completely ignore numbers and statistics. I'm all for the use of SENSIBLE statistics. But when it comes to crap like VORP, WARP, RF, EQA, etc...now we are talking about meaningless stats that are so over calculated that they don't represent at all what is going on between the lines.

Jerome
10-02-2005, 05:29 PM
I wasn't worried about them. Honest injun. Go back and read my posts, not just from last June, but July and August too.

If you were worried about Oakland last June it was only born of your ignorance for the nature of a 6-month 162-game baseball season.

I said they would choke and they did. Now go away with your ridiculous rationalizations for being a coward.


omg calm down. I was worried that another baseball team was better than my team, and that if the two played in the playoffs, mine would have difficulty advancing to the next round. But if that makes me a coward, well then I'm sorry.

:whatever:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-02-2005, 05:47 PM
omg calm down. I was worried that another baseball team was better than my team, and that if the two played in the playoffs, mine would have difficulty advancing to the next round. But if that makes me a coward, well then I'm sorry.

:rolleyes:

Judging by this response you're still a gutless wonder.

Crapping your pants over meeting the defending champions in best-of-5?
:cool:

SABRSox
10-02-2005, 05:49 PM
And that is how teams have been run for the majority of the history of the game. Using some sensible and meaningful stats, along with the required traditional scouting. Very few people who destest Beane and his spouted nonsense would say that you should completely ignore numbers and statistics. I'm all for the use of SENSIBLE statistics. But when it comes to crap like VORP, WARP, RF, EQA, etc...now we are talking about meaningless stats that are so over calculated that they don't represent at all what is going on between the lines.

I don't see anything wrong with stats like VORP, RF, EQA, etc. except when people like BP think they they've been perfected. They haven't, and they've got a long way to go still in baserunning and defensive sabermetrics. Still, there is some useful information in the bizarre statistics. But you CAN'T use those alone as basis for player evaluation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool...

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2005, 07:09 PM
I don't see anything wrong with stats like VORP, RF, EQA, etc. except when people like BP think they they've been perfected. They haven't, and they've got a long way to go still in baserunning and defensive sabermetrics. Still, there is some useful information in the bizarre statistics. But you CAN'T use those alone as basis for player evaluation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool...Most of these highly derived statistics, like VORP are pure BS. They just reflect the bias of the person who concocted it. For example, VORP is almost entirely OPS, dressed up to look like more than it is. The others are mostly the same.

Jerome
10-03-2005, 06:11 PM
:rolleyes:

Judging by this response you're still a gutless wonder.

Crapping your pants over meeting the defending champions in best-of-5?
:cool:


:whiner: :whiner:

A coward and a gutless wonder? I'm sorry for having an opinion. Being worried about a team that at the time was the hottest team in baseball and who had a very good record against us both home and away (the A's)? I'm sorry all-knowing baseball god who never once doubted the sox this season. I'll check with you before I let thoughts about the white sox winning or losing games enter my head.

And concerning the Red Sox, I'm expecting a Sox series win in 4 games.

what have I done to deserve such an angry response? I'm not a dark cloud by any means.

FarWestChicago
10-03-2005, 06:14 PM
what have I done to deserve such an angry response?I guess I'm not the only one who hates A's fans. :cool:

ma-gaga
10-03-2005, 06:34 PM
Terry Ryan has built a consistent winning team in Minnesota with a payroll similar to that of Oakland's, and he has done it by exhaustive scouting of amateur players and building through the draft...

The "problem", is that the B.P. people and M.Lewis have really polarized statistical analysis and have isolated it as a seperate tool to use to evaluate baseball players. Mainly, because they don't own a baseball team. They can't test out their theories. All they have is their simulations and spreadsheets.

Unfortunately for us mathmatically inclined people, baseball is too complex for a formula to capture.

Which is why it is the best game ever...

:cool:

gobears1987
10-04-2005, 01:13 PM
Where is Jeremyb1? I guess I shouldn't be surprised he hasn't come here in a while since the A's choked.

ma-gaga
10-04-2005, 02:29 PM
Where is Jeremyb1? I guess I shouldn't be surprised he hasn't come here in a while since the A's choked.

No no, he got himself banned. You can find him in the Roadhouse.