PDA

View Full Version : Billy Beane Haters Take Note :)


Beautox
05-31-2006, 01:17 PM
Billy Beane’s Perfect Draft
A Baseball Revolution? By Richard Van Zandt (http://guest.baseballevolution.com/index#rich), April 13, 2006


http://baseballevolution.com/guest/richard/rvzbeane1.html

Muy Interesante :D:

RKMeibalane
05-31-2006, 01:24 PM
I'm waiting for jeremyb1 to come here and make excuses.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 01:27 PM
i find it quite ironic that the man he insulted (Kenny) has the best results thus far and could potentially have even better results in the near future. Im glad K-Dub is our GM.

churlish
05-31-2006, 01:33 PM
Could someone remind me of how many postseason series the A's have won? Oakland is 23-29 in the worst division in the AL. If they switched to the Central, they would be out of the division race already. Their most talented pitcher is injury-prone. Their offense stinks. Their bullpen isn't very good. Yup, great job Billy.

1951Campbell
05-31-2006, 01:42 PM
What I find amazing is that some A's fans still swear by the ol' Beanemeister.

:?:

Flight #24
05-31-2006, 03:20 PM
Just because I gotta give KW a bit more love....

If Beane’s method is truly revolutionary, it stands to reason that the A’s should have bested their competition. But that is not quite the case. Four teams (San Francisco – 8%, Florida – 8.8%, Colorado – 9.8%, Chicago White Sox – 10%) have better success rates and that rate includes Papelbon. If you exclude Papelbon then all four of those teams have had more successes thus far (SF – 4 out of 50, Fla – 5 out of 57, Col – 5 out of 51, Chi – 5 out of 50).

However those numbers do not take into account players who might still make it to the show. The A’s drafted four players that year that could be considered as still having a legitimate chance to make it (Brown, Baker, Murphy and Shane Komine who was a 9th round pick that year). In a best case scenario where all four were to make it, their percentage would rise to 13.7%. Is that enough to make their draft the best? Possibly so, but only if other teams have already maxed out their potential successful picks.

However the White Sox have had 5 players reach the Majors so far (Royce Ring, Jeremy Reed, Josh Rupe, Brandon McCarthy and this year’s spring sensation Boone Logan) and selected three others who still have legitimate a shot at making it (Sean Tracey, Christopher Getz and Daniel Haigwood who was traded to Philadelphia in the deal for Jim Thome). If all three of those players are successful in their bid to ascend to the Majors, the White Sox success rate would rise to 16%.

Note: I hoped that since I'm quoting a relatively small portion of the overall article, I'm not overstepping copyright limitations. If I am, apologies to the mods for creating edit work.

Palehose13
05-31-2006, 03:27 PM
What I find amazing is that some A's fans still swear by the ol' Beanemeister.

:?:

But, but, but...he did write that book!

Scottiehaswheels
05-31-2006, 03:34 PM
Just because I gotta give KW a bit more love....


I know KW deserves a portion of the credit but honestly how much of that fault/blame/credit for draft picks really belongs to GM's? I would think it would be more dependant upon the work/talent of your scouts more than anything... I know the GM is in charge of scouts but... I'd give the scouts the majority of the love...

TheKittle
05-31-2006, 03:42 PM
I know KW deserves a portion of the credit but honestly how much of that fault/blame/credit for draft picks really belongs to GM's? I would think it would be more dependant upon the work/talent of your scouts more than anything... I know the GM is in charge of scouts but... I'd give the scouts the majority of the love...

Give somebody else credit? Not with the ego maniac Beane. He wants all the credit. Also is there any better brownnoser than the author of Moneyball?

Banix12
05-31-2006, 03:58 PM
Well I think the issue I have is that the players that he drafted and did well in the majors like Swisher and Blanton, were also considered very good by other teams and would have likely gone early even if the A's didn't take them.

The guys he reached for haven't exactly been stellar.

Michael Lewis was a very persuasive writer and has way overhyped Beane and the players. Overhyped to the point where I don't believe that Beane or the players deserve the anger that gets spewed at them on a regular basis. Especially the players, many of these guys were stuck in an unwinnable situation where they were declared near sure things by a lot of moneyball savants before they even took a professional at-bat in rookie ball and at the same time some of the moneyball haters just hated these guys for some reason I don't understand.

Though i think Beane has used that hype to his advantage a bit, for example in getting the Royals to take on guys like Teahen as a prospect. Realizing that the league was likely beginning to think higher of his prospects than he was.

Oblong
05-31-2006, 11:33 PM
The point of Moneyball wasn't that Beane's method was the best way, it's that it was the best way for his situation, a very tight budget. He had to get ownership approval to take on an additonal $400K in salary for a trade. He couldn't play the same game as the other teams because he was at a financial disadvantage. Lewis didn't set out to write a book on Beane but rather on the overall business of baseball. What he found was that one team did it one way and the other 29 teams pretty much did it another way so he focused on the one team.

But I also think the Beaniacs need to be reminded that it's not an efficiency contest. You don't get bonus runs for having a small payroll. I get tired of people evaluating deals or picks based on money. "Yeah but for half the price you get 2/3 the production, therefore they got the better deal"

Banix12
06-01-2006, 12:23 AM
The point of Moneyball wasn't that Beane's method was the best way, it's that it was the best way for his situation, a very tight budget. He had to get ownership approval to take on an additonal $400K in salary for a trade. He couldn't play the same game as the other teams because he was at a financial disadvantage. Lewis didn't set out to write a book on Beane but rather on the overall business of baseball. What he found was that one team did it one way and the other 29 teams pretty much did it another way so he focused on the one team.

But I also think the Beaniacs need to be reminded that it's not an efficiency contest. You don't get bonus runs for having a small payroll. I get tired of people evaluating deals or picks based on money. "Yeah but for half the price you get 2/3 the production, therefore they got the better deal"

Good point. I have always thought the book is really all about the management of risk. Try the best to get maximum output from the roster and the draft while risking the smallest amount of capital.

As for his style of drafting it seems to be no more of a crapshoot than the usual way. I don't necessarily agree with some of the examples used in the article posted here but it's true that many of the players Beane "reached" for in the draft have yet to really live up to the hype that was thrust upon them.

Jurr
06-01-2006, 09:43 AM
If you haven't read the afterword to the Tony LaRussa book 3 Nights in August (the paperback version), all that needs to be said is said there.

The paperback version has an added piece at the end that is an attack on the Moneyball people and Billy Beane. It is written after the 2005 WS.

The writer calls out Billy Beane for living under the excuse of "I have no money, so don't expect a lot" and shows how all of those "can't miss diamonds in the rough" that he drafted haven't been that great.

He also defends KW, due to the fact that Moneyball crushes him. He mentions how the Scott Podsednik trade looked like a joke to all of the moneyball people, yet the human aspect of the trade (chemistry, attitude) set the tone for a WS year.

Great stuff.

SBSoxFan
06-01-2006, 10:27 AM
Seems to me not too many approaches look good when you only have one really good starting pitcher instead of 3.

chaerulez
06-01-2006, 10:32 AM
The point of Moneyball wasn't that Beane's method was the best way, it's that it was the best way for his situation, a very tight budget. He had to get ownership approval to take on an additonal $400K in salary for a trade. He couldn't play the same game as the other teams because he was at a financial disadvantage. Lewis didn't set out to write a book on Beane but rather on the overall business of baseball. What he found was that one team did it one way and the other 29 teams pretty much did it another way so he focused on the one team.

But I also think the Beaniacs need to be reminded that it's not an efficiency contest. You don't get bonus runs for having a small payroll. I get tired of people evaluating deals or picks based on money. "Yeah but for half the price you get 2/3 the production, therefore they got the better deal"

Yeah I think Moneyball has been interepreted the wrong way. It does seem like Beane is an arrogant blowhard who says his method is the best (and it is in certain ways), but the overall point of the Moneyball system is getting as much as you can for the limited resources you have. Beane has made some good moves, but he has made some bad ones just like any GM (passing up Todd Helton, giving Loaiza a 3 year 21 million deal...)

Ol' No. 2
06-01-2006, 10:45 AM
Seems to me not too many approaches look good when you only have one really good starting pitcher instead of 3.Ding, ding. Give the man a cigar.

The real secret to Moneyball is: Get a Zito, Mulder and Hudson to anchor your rotation. Do that and almost anything else you do will look good.

Oblong
06-01-2006, 10:44 PM
It's all a crapshoot. It's no different than playing blackjack. There's all these different theories and approaches but in the end you still lose.

Take an average draft year and figure out how many players from that draft actually make the major leagues. Then figure out how of that actually make it for more than 2 seasons. Then figure out how many of that becomes all star players? Then figure there's 30 teams competing for that pool. I think the important thing is to pick a system and stick with it, just like blackjack. If you are reasonably competent then you should be ok. You'll get lucky and unlucky.

I also agree that Beane can be a jerk. He denied a lot of th stuff in the book, such as the Bonderman draft pick.

1951Campbell
06-01-2006, 10:56 PM
...the overall point of the Moneyball system is getting as much as you can for the limited resources you have.

And that's my problem with Moneyball. Is there a competing system where you try and get as little as you can for unlimited resources? :dunno:

It's like Beane took a bunch of obvious investing maxims--"buy low, sell high", "get in on the ground floor"--and claimed he discovered a philosopher's stone. Which he didn't. He's shouting the obvious from the rooftops and claiming he's wise.

Banix12
06-01-2006, 11:03 PM
And that's my problem with Moneyball. Is there a competing system where you try and get as little as you can for unlimited resources? :dunno:

I don't think some form of that system exists in baseball but in basketball the New York Knicks are really trying

1951Campbell
06-02-2006, 09:33 AM
I don't think some form of that system exists in baseball but in basketball the New York Knicks are really trying

Isiahball: available at a Border's near you!

Oblong
06-03-2006, 11:03 PM
Isiahball: available at a Border's near you!
That's beautiful. Isiah has ruined nearly everything he's touched since he left the game. He tried his hand at some Speedy Printing Franchises, got the CBA to fold. It's endless.

Remember a few years ago when Bird took over the Pacers? It took him a few days to fire Isiah. He was savoring the moment. He was like
a kid on Christmas morning.

FedEx227
06-04-2006, 12:45 AM
Ding, ding. Give the man a cigar.

The real secret to Moneyball is: Get a Zito, Mulder and Hudson to anchor your rotation. Do that and almost anything else you do will look good.

Yeah, Moneyball isn't entirely predicated on getting low budget hitters and stuff. The biggest part of it was the fact that he had gotten these aces and he built around them. Since then though hes cheaped out on keeping all of them outside of Zito.

Billy-Ball worked well in 2000-2003, but it has seen it's day. I'm sorry, but Mark Ellis isn't going to be a World Series 2nd basemen.

Nelson Foxtrot
06-06-2006, 03:59 AM
I haven't read the book, but have heard various interpretations of Beane's strategy and the concept of "moneyball." Is it getting good players cheap? Determining which stat/talent is most undervalued? High OBP? Sabermetrics?

Dozens of GMs have been stuck with miniscule budgets throughout MLB history, and have easily matched Beane in pennants won. Bill James has been inventing new meaningless stats since the 1970s. People like Joe McCarthy and Connie Mack were molding players into walk machines before Granny and Grampy Beane were old enough to walk. I'm still trying to figure out what innovative ideas Billy Beane has had.

Banix12
06-06-2006, 06:08 AM
I haven't read the book, but have heard various interpretations of Beane's strategy and the concept of "moneyball." Is it getting good players cheap? Determining which stat/talent is most undervalued? High OBP? Sabermetrics?

Dozens of GMs have been stuck with miniscule budgets throughout MLB history, and have easily matched Beane in pennants won. Bill James has been inventing new meaningless stats since the 1970s. People like Joe McCarthy and Connie Mack were molding players into walk machines before Granny and Grampy Beane were old enough to walk. I'm still trying to figure out what innovative ideas Billy Beane has had.

First I recommend actually reading the book. It's actually an interesting read, though I do think some of the ideas are overstated. But I consider that the fault of Michael Lewis over Billy Beane.

Mostly it's about finding players who are undervalued by the market who can bring a maximum return for little cash. It's also about managing risk when running a team, at least in my opinion.