PDA

View Full Version : Why the A's don't win the playoffs


caulfield12
10-18-2006, 12:25 PM
http://www.sportsline.com/spin/story/9735512

palehozenychicty
10-18-2006, 12:59 PM
Everybody here knew this for years, but finally it gets out in the media.

:fobbgod:

You'll never expose me! Nevaaaah!

SBSoxFan
10-18-2006, 01:35 PM
As long as Beane thinks the playoffs are a crap shoot, the A's won't win. How's that for a rallying cry? 8 teams, 1 champion, if we get lucky, it might be us.

caulfield12
10-18-2006, 03:12 PM
That sounds like the Atlanta Braves' philosophy, or the St. Louis Cardinals.

For all those hyping LaRussa as some kind of "wonder boy" manager, his teams have not had much success when it counted.

The A's won the most anticlimatic World Series in 1989, but also manage to lose to inferior teams in 1988 and 1990. With the Cardinals, his playoff appearances have also been a disappointment...not quite like the Twins, Padres or A's of recent years, but close.

ode to veeck
10-18-2006, 06:12 PM
as long as Beane only allows his manager to just be a mouthpiece, the A's ain't going nowhere in the playoffs

TaylorStSox
10-18-2006, 06:24 PM
Slow, plodding moneyball teams don't win in the playoff's because they can't create runs against good pitching. The umps aren't going to help you out in the playoffs. Strike zones tend to be bigger. You need to earn your way on.


Now, watch some nerd with a calculator and the internet give me a 3 paragraph rebuttal filled with stats I've never heard of to dispute that.

PKalltheway
10-18-2006, 06:42 PM
You see, what Beane desperately wants is to be GM and manager. But that can't happen (darn those pesky baseball rules)
Wait a minute, wasn't Whitey Herzog a manager and GM at the same time at one point for the Cardinals?:?:

brewcrew/chisox
10-18-2006, 08:04 PM
Slow, plodding moneyball teams don't win in the playoff's because they can't create runs against good pitching. The umps aren't going to help you out in the playoffs. Strike zones tend to be bigger. You need to earn your way on.


Now, watch some nerd with a calculator and the internet give me a 3 paragraph rebuttal filled with stats I've never heard of to dispute that.

I see you've read the book, or at least need to work on your reading comprehension.

The thesis of Moneyball is not about loading up your team with players high in OBP. It has to with looking for players that excel in statistical categories that aren't examined by other teams. OBP just happened to be the stat of the time the book was written. So many teams copied the system afterwards that high OBP players are no longer available, so Beane has to look elsewhere for players. If you want to criticize Moneyball fine, but then get the facts of the book straight.

By the way, ALL teams look at statistics when looking at players. They'd be stupid not to. Hell, the 2004 champion Red Sox were built greatly on the advice of Bill James, but what does he know. He's just a nerd with a calculator.

3 paragraphs, but I kept them short for you.

ilsox7
10-18-2006, 08:09 PM
I see you've read the book, or at least need to work on your reading comprehension.

The thesis of Moneyball is not about loading up your team with players high in OBP. It has to with looking for players that excel in statistical categories that aren't examined by other teams. OBP just happened to be the stat of the time the book was written. So many teams copied the system afterwards that high OBP players are no longer available, so Beane has to look elsewhere for players. If you want to criticize Moneyball fine, but then get the facts of the book straight.

By the way, ALL teams look at statistics when looking at players. They'd be stupid not to. Hell, the 2005 champion Red Sox were built greatly on the advice of Bill James, but what does he know. He's just a nerd with a calculator.

3 paragraphs, but I kept them short for you.

If you're going to rip someone to shreds for not checking their facts, you may want to check your facts in that very post...

brewcrew/chisox
10-18-2006, 08:14 PM
What didn't I check? I stand behind what i say.

ilsox7
10-18-2006, 08:15 PM
What didn't I check? I stand behind what i say.

Re-read your post. There is a glaring error that anyone on this site will immediately catch.

brewcrew/chisox
10-18-2006, 08:23 PM
Re-read your post. There is a glaring error that anyone on this site will immediately catch.

:redface:

Fixed it. I can't believe I did that. I don't mean to rip you TaylorSox either. I apologize for coming off so strong. I've kept my mouth shut about all of the Billy Beane bashing because personally i think some of the criticism is valid. But I also thing a good deal of trash is thrown his way that he doesn't deserve.

ilsox7
10-18-2006, 08:24 PM
:redface:

Fixed it.

I just enjoyed the irony of the post. :D:

TaylorStSox
10-18-2006, 10:29 PM
:redface:

Fixed it. I can't believe I did that. I don't mean to rip you TaylorSox either. I apologize for coming off so strong. I've kept my mouth shut about all of the Billy Beane bashing because personally i think some of the criticism is valid. But I also thing a good deal of trash is thrown his way that he doesn't deserve.



No big deal. You didn't offend me. You're right. I never read the book. Baseball books don't interest me. However, I hate Billy Beane so I enjoy watching his teams choke year in and year out. Philosophically, I think it's laughable to choose your players based on their statistical trends rather than their ability, especially when evaluating young talent. IMO, Ryan Sweeney's a good example of a guy that Beane would miss. He'll look at a stat sheet and see a player that doesn't walk enough or hit for power. I watch the kid play and see a kid that was born to play baseball. He does everything really well.

In Beane's defense, he's done a fantastic job drafting pitchers.

RKMeibalane
10-18-2006, 10:44 PM
Wait a minute, wasn't Whitey Herzog a manager and GM at the same time at one point for the Cardinals?:?:

"That was a different time. They are not the same!" --Richard Belding

Craig Grebeck
10-18-2006, 11:37 PM
No big deal. You didn't offend me. You're right. I never read the book. Baseball books don't interest me. However, I hate Billy Beane so I enjoy watching his teams choke year in and year out. Philosophically, I think it's laughable to choose your players based on their statistical trends rather than their ability, especially when evaluating young talent. IMO, Ryan Sweeney's a good example of a guy that Beane would miss. He'll look at a stat sheet and see a player that doesn't walk enough or hit for power. I watch the kid play and see a kid that was born to play baseball. He does everything really well.

In Beane's defense, he's done a fantastic job drafting pitchers.
If he did everything well, it would show through a statsheet (i.e. hit).

FedEx227
10-18-2006, 11:49 PM
Number one reason he wouldn't like Sweeney is because he was a high-school player and anyone familiar with the book would know that he prefers college players MUCH more based on longevity and intelligence.

With that being said, I'm a fan of Billy Beane and his work, plus I think baseball is indeed a game of stats and math. I don't think that scouting is apart but you can't discredit stats because they do show you much about a player. With the standard AVG, Hits, RBIs, HR maybe not, but with new revolutions in stats (VORP, OPS, RC) you get to see a bit more.

Honestly you can bash Beane all you want but he has been arguably the most successful GM of the past 10 years (Schuerholz as well) even if his team didn't reach a World Series, I can't deny that. The fact that he has consistently put out a winner in a small-market without much backing from ownership, an awful stadium deal and losing some fantastic players throughout the way. As we've seen small-market teams wither, die and blame the Yankees for all their troubles the A's have worked their ass off to put a winning team out on the field every single year.

Unfortunately his bone-headedness and inability to balance his thinking has caused him to do this very thing that we are talking about right now, fail in the playoffs.

Although if Jermaine Dye doesn't get hurt the A's are in the 2001 World Series, that was a solid all around team.

Mohoney
10-19-2006, 12:07 AM
"That's because things need to happen on the fly as the circumstances change."

This was the most telling statement in that whole article. When you set your entire philosophy around a statistical model developed by a weenie nightwatchman from Kansas City, it doesn't allow for ADJUSTMENTS! If you're getting blown out of the building, and you can't ADJUST, you're totally screwed.

FedEx227
10-19-2006, 12:14 AM
This was the most telling statement in that whole article. When you set your entire philosophy around a statistical model developed by a weenie nightwatchman from Kansas City, it doesn't allow for ADJUSTMENTS! If you're getting blown out of the building, and you can't ADJUST, you're totally screwed.

No doubt, that is the number one reason why the A's do not win in the playoffs because they are so one-sided, close-minded that if they need to switch their game up its impossible, as evident by the ALCS, it was obvious that what they were doing wasn't working but they continued to do it over and over and over.

Jerome
10-19-2006, 12:52 AM
i don't see how this year is the fault of Billy Beane or Ken Macha.

The Tigers had some solid pitching and the A's hitters left way way too many runners on base.

caulfield12
10-19-2006, 08:00 AM
Hudson was drafted on Alderson's watch, and you have to question the Bonderman trade as well. If you want to criticize KW, you still can't say he's given another team in #1, 2 or even 3 starter via trade (unless you want to argue the Kip Wells case). We'll see if his luck runs out with Gio Gonzalez or Tyler Lumsden.

Yes, when Moneyball came out, there was more of a focus on players that hit for power and high RBI numbers (it has always been this way)...versus high OBP hitters that had stat sheets similar to a Hatteberg or Youkilis. In some ways, it has overcorrected, and the Juan Pierre's and Scott Podsednik's are becoming more overcompensated (versus traditional matrixes of compensation). If the Mets get into the World Series and win, you'll have just as much focus on this position, because Jose Reyes might be the best leadoff man in the game right now.

OTOH, if the Tigers win, everyone will wonder how they did it with Granderson, a player who might have struck out 200 times if he'd played every single game...yet a sound defensive player whose extra-base pop came up at critical times throughout the playoffs to lift the Tigers. The Tigers are pretty much the ANTI-MONEYBALL team, in every aspect EXCEPT cheap, younger pitching.

spiffie
10-19-2006, 10:57 AM
Slow, plodding moneyball teams don't win in the playoff's because they can't create runs against good pitching. The umps aren't going to help you out in the playoffs. Strike zones tend to be bigger. You need to earn your way on.


Now, watch some nerd with a calculator and the internet give me a 3 paragraph rebuttal filled with stats I've never heard of to dispute that.
Here's a rebuttal. The sainted Twins, playing with their blend of wonderful baseball that we all agree with, have made the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 years. They have failed to advance to the World Series any of those times. The 2004 Red Sox won the World Series despite never using sacrifices or stolen bases except in rare cases. The 2001 Diamondbacks ranked 11th out of 16 in stolen bases in the NL that year. The 2000 Yankees had a total of 16 sacrifice bunts, compared to 53 for the 2005 White Sox.

You name the thing that is supposed to work in the playoffs, the tried and true formula, and I'll show you a whole lot of teams that don't adhere anything close to that. EXCEPT for one thing. Teams that pitch well win. The last time a team that didn't rank in the top half of its league in ERA won the World Series was the 1992 Toronto Blue Jays. The only thing that has been proven year in and year out to be indispensible to winning the World Series has been great pitching. Without that, you don't win. Otherwise, teams win with lots of smallball, with lots of hitting, and everything in between.

(Stats used in this post: stolen bases, sacrifice bunts, ERA. Hope those aren't too obscure.)

caulfield12
10-19-2006, 12:55 PM
Usually, in the playoffs, the team with the better ERA wins around 80% of the time.

The only recent counter-examples are the Yankees, Red Sox (because of their offenses compensating, not to mention their payrolls) and the Twins beating the A's once.

Frater Perdurabo
10-19-2006, 08:49 PM
Teams that rely on getting walks to pack the bases and get runs fail in the playoffs because the teams they face in the playoffs have more good pitchers who don't surrender walks as much.

Patience at the plate when facing crappy pitchers pays off. Against good pitching, the patience becomes paralysis and you end up failing to get guys on base and/or score enough runs to win. Plus, when you don't ever practice any kinds of sacrifice plays (sac flies, sac bunts) or stealing bases, your team is utterly incapable of manufacturing runs when you do manage to get a runner on base.

TaylorStSox
10-19-2006, 08:51 PM
If he did everything well, it would show through a statsheet (i.e. hit).

Bull****. Sweeney's a good example of a toolsy guy. He's been young at every level so the stats don't wow you. His ability is obvious though. The kid can hit. He's just been overwelmed at times. Wanna bet that he won't be a real solid (.300/20/100) major leaguer? Go ahead and point out his power numbers. I know he has power because I saw it in the spring.

TaylorStSox
10-19-2006, 08:52 PM
Teams that rely on getting walks to pack the bases and get runs fail in the playoffs because the teams they face in the playoffs have more good pitchers who don't surrender walks as much.

Patience at the plate when facing crappy pitchers pays off. Against good pitching, the patience becomes paralysis and you end up failing to get guys on base and/or score enough runs to win. Plus, when you don't ever practice any kinds of sacrifice plays (sac flies, sac bunts) or stealing bases, your team is utterly incapable of manufacturing runs when you do manage to get a runner on base.



Well said. You aren't going to beat good pitching if you don't put the ball in play.

FarWestChicago
10-20-2006, 11:37 PM
i don't see how this year is the fault of Billy Beane or Ken Macha.

The Tigers had some solid pitching and the A's hitters left way way too many runners on base.That's because you are a mindless FOBB who worships the turds of Billy Beane.

Myrtle72
10-21-2006, 12:16 AM
That's because you are a mindless FOBB who worships the turds of Billy Beane.

Everyone should know better than to say something good about Beane around you, West. :cool:

jabrch
10-21-2006, 12:33 AM
The FOBB never cease to amaze me. Macha takes the bullet this time. Who's next? Eventually when the residuals of the steroid era are gone, and Beane doesn't have extra draft picks to deal with, he will be exposed as a complete and total phoney. I'll be interetested then in seeing what Lewis thinks.

FarWestChicago
10-21-2006, 12:53 AM
I'll be interetested then in seeing what Lewis thinks.Lewis doesn't give a ****. He's gone on to many other topics. Thats the really funny thing about FOBB's. They weren't just played by Beane, they were played by Lewis. He's a writer. He needs to sell books. He's written about many things before and since creating the mindless cult of Beane. :redneck

jabrch
10-21-2006, 01:05 AM
Lewis doesn't give a ****. He's gone on to many other topics. Thats the really funny thing about FOBB's. They weren't just played by Beane, they were played by Lewis. He's a writer. He needs to sell books. He's written about many things before and since creating the mindless cult of Beane. :redneck

I heard he was writing a sequel to Moneyball. I'd be curious to see what Lewis thinks of the job Beane has done since the steroid users are gone from Oakland?