PDA

View Full Version : How many mediocre outfielders is Billy Beane going to acquire?


Jjav829
05-03-2007, 06:18 PM
On April 27th Beane acquired Chris Denorfia from the Reds.

On April 29th, Beane acquired Ryan Langerhans from the Braves.

On May 2nd, Beane shipped Langerhands to the Nationals for Chris Snelling.

On May 3rd, Beane acquired Jack Cust from the Padres.

Has anyone ever made 4 trades in such a short amount of time and received such little talent in return? In fairness, he gave up basically nothing for any of these guys. Also, the A's have been hit hard with injuries (Bradley, Swisher and now Piazza and possibly Buck). It's still weird to see one GM acquire so many mediocre outfielders in such a short amount of time.

BeeBeeRichard
05-03-2007, 06:29 PM
It's still weird to see one GM acquire so many mediocre outfielders in such a short amount of time.


Yeah it took us more than two years to get Posednik, Ozuna, Mackowiak and Erstad.

DrewSox56
05-03-2007, 06:55 PM
- Here's a little more info -

Denorfia: Age - 26

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
2005 24 CIN (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/2005.shtml) NL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2005.shtml) 18 38 8 10 3 0 1 2 1 0 6 9 .263 .364 .421 101 16 0 0 0 0 1
2006 25 CIN (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/2006.shtml) NL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2006.shtml) 49 106 14 30 6 0 1 7 1 1 11 21 .283 .356 .368 81 39 2 0 1 1 1
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
2 Seasons 67 144 22 40 9 0 2 9 2 1 17 30 .278 .358 .382 86 55 2 0 1 1 2Snelling: Age - 25

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
2002 20 SEA (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2002.shtml) AL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2002.shtml) 8 27 2 4 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .259 28 7 0 0 0 0 2
2005 23 SEA (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2005.shtml) AL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2005.shtml) 15 29 4 8 2 0 1 1 0 2 5 2 .276 .382 .448 122 13 1 0 0 0 0
2006 24 SEA (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2006.shtml) AL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2006.shtml) 36 96 14 24 6 1 3 8 2 1 13 38 .250 .360 .427 109 41 5 1 0 4 0
2007 25 WSN (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/WSN/2007.shtml) NL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2007.shtml) 24 49 6 10 1 1 1 7 0 1 9 11 .204 .361 .327 87 16 0 0 1 3 1
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
4 Seasons 83 201 26 46 9 2 6 19 2 4 29 55 .229 .345 .383 95 77 6 1 1 7 3Cust: Age - 28


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
2001 22 ARI (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ARI/2001.shtml) NL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2001.shtml) 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .500 .667 .500 202 1 0 0 0 0 0
2002 23 COL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/2002.shtml) NL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2002.shtml) 35 65 8 11 2 0 1 8 0 1 12 32 .169 .295 .246 34 16 0 1 0 0 3
2003 24 BAL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/2003.shtml) AL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2003.shtml) 27 73 7 19 7 0 4 11 0 0 10 25 .260 .357 .521 133 38 0 0 0 1 0
2004 25 BAL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/2004.shtml) AL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2004.shtml) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .000 .000 .000 -100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2006 27 SDP (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SDP/2006.shtml) NL (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2006.shtml) 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .333 .333 .333 78 1 0 0 0 0 0
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+

5 Seasons 70 144 16 32 9 0 5 19 0 1 23 59 .222 .331 .389 85 56 0 1 0 1 3

FedEx227
05-03-2007, 07:17 PM
I think the Denorfia and Snelling trades are great. Both are only 1-2 years removed from being top prospects in their organizations. I'm surprised at how quickly the Reds gave up on Denorfia.

Plus they are Billy Beane moves. Low-cost, high OBP guys. We'll see what happens.

JB98
05-03-2007, 07:47 PM
I think the Denorfia and Snelling trades are great. Both are only 1-2 years removed from being top prospects in their organizations. I'm surprised at how quickly the Reds gave up on Denorfia.

Plus they are Billy Beane moves. Low-cost, high OBP guys. We'll see what happens.

The A's will be competitive in the division, possibly win it and choke in the playoffs because you can't walk your way to a championship. That's what always happens.

FedEx227
05-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Oh yeah, definitely. Beane has even said it himself thousands of times, that the playoffs are a complete crapshoot and that he doesn't build the A's for a crapshoot.

The problem stems from facing the teams best pitchers. No longer will you be able to expose their 3-4-5 guys, now you're getting the best teams best pictures, who usually don't make many mistakes.

The A's were damn close in 2001 though, Dye breaking his leg and the Jeter play absolutely killed their momentum.

Oblong
05-03-2007, 10:07 PM
The quote in Moneyball was "our **** doesn't work in the playoffs".

All depends on what the goal of the organziation is, I guess. If they don't see winning a WS as being worth the extra money and risk then just be a perennial contender/playoff choker.

palehozenychicty
05-04-2007, 10:44 AM
The quote in Moneyball was "our **** doesn't work in the playoffs".

All depends on what the goal of the organziation is, I guess. If they don't see winning a WS as being worth the extra money and risk then just be a perennial contender/playoff choker.

Which is why I can't respect either them, the Twins, or Braves for their consecutive postseason appearances. To have so few WS appearances, much less titles, with all those appearances tells me that they may not be doing their best to win.

balke
05-04-2007, 11:00 AM
They said on ESPN that the A's might be shopping Harden. They are in a tough spot right now, not much we can rob from them though.

soxtalker
05-04-2007, 11:21 AM
IIRC from Moneyball (read a few years ago) and subsequent BB interviews, Beane looks for aspects of the game that are undervalued by other teams. The OBP/walks was an example that he talked about in Moneyball. That changes over time, as teams learn from the success of others. So, the amount that teams are willing to pay for OBP has gone up significantly. It is no longer undervalued, and he has to look at other aspects of the game that may be. At least that is what I believe I've heard him say in interviews.

Now, taking that into account, does this indicate that he's stockpiling these outfielders, because he thinks that that type of player is undervalued? Or is he could just be plugging holes on his team, taking several players, assuming that not all will pan out? (That's essentially what KW did with pitchers this off season.)

EastCoastSoxFan
05-04-2007, 11:32 AM
Which is why I can't respect either them, the Twins, or Braves for their consecutive postseason appearances. To have so few WS appearances, much less titles, with all those appearances tells me that they may not be doing their best to win.What it tells me is that there are 30 teams all after the same prize, and a lot of different things have to go right in order for a team to get through 3 rounds of playoffs.

Minnesota, for example, actually had the talent to win it all last year -- Mauer / Cuddyer / Morneau / Hunter is a pretty damn good middle of the order, and with their pitching and defense there is no reason they couldn't have gotten hot and ridden through the playoffs the way we did in '05.
But the fact that they didn't get hot at the right time (or they just ran into a team that had a better playoff series) doesn't mean that management didn't put a team on the field that was incapable of winning.

It takes a lot to win a World Series these days. The Yankees' run of 4 WS titles in 5 years back in the late '90's was impressive, but if you think about it there were really only two elite teams in the AL during that time, the Yankees and Indians.
These days you have the Yankees and Red Sox in the east, Oakland and LA in the west, and four teams in the central who all have the talent to put a season together and make a run at the World Series.
That's one of the reasons I'm so glad we made the most of our opportunity in 2005. We may not get another one...

soltrain21
05-04-2007, 11:42 AM
Oh yeah, definitely. Beane has even said it himself thousands of times, that the playoffs are a complete crapshoot and that he doesn't build the A's for a crapshoot.



That is the worst excuse for failure in the playoffs that I've ever heard.

palehozenychicty
05-04-2007, 11:48 AM
What it tells me is that there are 30 teams all after the same prize, and a lot of different things have to go right in order for a team to get through 3 rounds of playoffs.

Minnesota, for example, actually had the talent to win it all last year -- Mauer / Cuddyer / Morneau / Hunter is a pretty damn good middle of the order, and with their pitching and defense there is no reason they couldn't have gotten hot and ridden through the playoffs the way we did in '05.
But the fact that they didn't get hot at the right time (or they just ran into a team that had a better playoff series) doesn't mean that management didn't put a team on the field that was incapable of winning.

It takes a lot to win a World Series these days. The Yankees' run of 4 WS titles in 5 years back in the late '90's was impressive, but if you think about it there were really only two elite teams in the AL during that time, the Yankees and Indians.
These days you have the Yankees and Red Sox in the east, Oakland and LA in the west, and four teams in the central who all have the talent to put a season together and make a run at the World Series.
That's one of the reasons I'm so glad we made the most of our opportunity in 2005. We may not get another one...

Their lineup is definitely good enough to win it all, but Johan is by far their best pitcher. Nobody else in that rotation is going to win important October games for them. Maybe Garza and Bonser in the future, with a healthy Liriano, but not yet.

russ99
05-04-2007, 02:08 PM
How many mediocre outfielders is Billy Beane going to acquire?

And why can't the Sox get one?? :D:

PaulDrake
05-04-2007, 02:46 PM
Billy Beane underwhelms me. The mystique that some like to put around him is equal parts humorous and tiresome.

PaulDrake
05-04-2007, 02:51 PM
IIRC from Moneyball (read a few years ago) and subsequent BB interviews, Beane looks for aspects of the game that are undervalued by other teams. The OBP/walks was an example that he talked about in Moneyball. That changes over time, as teams learn from the success of others. So, the amount that teams are willing to pay for OBP has gone up significantly. It is no longer undervalued, and he has to look at other aspects of the game that may be. At least that is what I believe I've heard him say in interviews.

Now, taking that into account, does this indicate that he's stockpiling these outfielders, because he thinks that that type of player is undervalued? Or is he could just be plugging holes on his team, taking several players, assuming that not all will pan out? (That's essentially what KW did with pitchers this off season.) Whatever he's doing I'm sure it's too brilliant for us plebes to comprehend.

Oblong
05-04-2007, 04:14 PM
IIRC from Moneyball (read a few years ago) and subsequent BB interviews, Beane looks for aspects of the game that are undervalued by other teams. The OBP/walks was an example that he talked about in Moneyball. That changes over time, as teams learn from the success of others. So, the amount that teams are willing to pay for OBP has gone up significantly. It is no longer undervalued, and he has to look at other aspects of the game that may be. At least that is what I believe I've heard him say in interviews.

Now, taking that into account, does this indicate that he's stockpiling these outfielders, because he thinks that that type of player is undervalued? Or is he could just be plugging holes on his team, taking several players, assuming that not all will pan out? (That's essentially what KW did with pitchers this off season.)

Yes, market inefficiencies was the real lesson there. At the time it was the OBP/Walk guys. But the book changed it. When John Henry took over in Boston he and Theo were worried that the exposure of that philosphy would make it no longer an advantage.

The playoffs are a crapshoot. Not because it's a playoff but because in a short series anything can happen. Yes it's a cliche but it's still just a stretch of a few games. Look at any team's 162 game schedule and you'll find stretches of games that conflict with their overall record. I think what happens when the playoffs in any sport are over is that fans think the team that won was just meant to win that year and had no real difficulty doing it.

Tragg
05-04-2007, 06:27 PM
The A's will be competitive in the division, possibly win it and choke in the playoffs because you can't walk your way to a championship. That's what always happens.
I agree with that...but we sure could use some of those walk guys right about now to get on in front of our hitters.

JB98
05-04-2007, 06:30 PM
I agree with that...but we sure could use some of those walk guys right about now to get on in front of our hitters.

Meh...Erstad's been hitting his way on quite a bit the last 10 days. Hasn't done us a damn bit a good. The middle of the lineup is slumping very, very badly. And Iguchi has been vomit-inducing bad. I don't know what we could use right now, other than an enema.

Jjav829
05-04-2007, 06:52 PM
Hey, Billy decided to change things up a bit today and acquire a mediocre catcher. :redneck

Athletics acquired catcher J.D. Closser from the Brewers for outfielder Charles Thomas.

I wonder what tomorrow's Billy Beane trade will bring the Athletics...

Jerome
05-04-2007, 08:10 PM
Yeah it took us more than two years to get Posednik, Ozuna, Mackowiak and Erstad.

:D:


And yes, the playoffs are a crapshoot

a stretch of 162 games compared to a 5 game series? Anything can happen in 5 games.

Tragg
05-04-2007, 10:52 PM
Meh...Erstad's been hitting his way on quite a bit the last 10 days. Hasn't done us a damn bit a good. The middle of the lineup is slumping very, very badly. And Iguchi has been vomit-inducing bad. I don't know what we could use right now, other than an enema.When a team has Rob M, Ozuna and Erstad (through it all, a lofty .255 BA) logging major PT, then that team has little call to look at others' mediocre outfielders. At least Dye, Konerko and young players have some hope for improvement...
That said, Rob M, Ozuna, Cintron, ERstad are ozzie-style hitters. Ozzie said Thome walks too much and that Erstad is a .400 quality hitter. He's the boss, so maybe it will work.

FarWestChicago
05-04-2007, 11:03 PM
The playoffs are a crapshoot.The only flaw with this theory are the guys/teams that win consistently. I think the larger the team (roster) the more of a crapshoot it becomes. But, you always knew, if you had a brain, when Jordan would win the NBA title. Actually, the biggest surprise in recent years was the vastly superior Tigers losing to the incredibly weak Cards. I'm not saying this to hassle you. But, that was an insane result. The Cards were a horrible team, would have never made the playoffs in a real division, and the Tigers were an excellent team. That was a choke of monumental proportions and shouldn't be used as an "example" of why the "playoffs are a crapshoot".

Oblong
05-05-2007, 12:08 AM
The only flaw with this theory are the guys/teams that win consistently. I think the larger the team (roster) the more of a crapshoot it becomes. But, you always knew, if you had a brain, when Jordan would win the NBA title. Actually, the biggest surprise in recent years was the vastly superior Tigers losing to the incredibly weak Cards. I'm not saying this to hassle you. But, that was an insane result. The Cards were a horrible team, would have never made the playoffs in a real division, and the Tigers were an excellent team. That was a choke of monumental proportions and shouldn't be used as an "example" of why the "playoffs are a crapshoot".

I'm not using that as an example. I never brought it up. Heck, if the Tigers played the yankees in a 7 game series in the first round they may have lost in 7. But as it stands I don't thinkt he Yanks choked. They lost a close game 2 and were stumped by two great pitching performances.

I think basketball is different from baseball because it's more of a team effort so that a guy who's having an off night can get direct support from his teammates. And because an individual like Jordan can control the game so much. A baseball player comparable to Jordan still only pitches 1 or 2 games in a series or bats 3 or 4 time in a game. Baseball is individuals vs. individuals.

One of the reasons I've stated here that I was glad the White Sox won in 2005 was because they wer the best team all season and I like it when the best team all season wins the WS. More often than I like the WS winner isn't, in my opinon, the best team all year. They got hot at the right time.

FarWestChicago
05-05-2007, 07:25 AM
Baseball is individuals vs. individuals. Yes it is; and we see fluke winners often. But, I still don't buy Beane's "crapshoot" excuse for consistent failure. I think it's just something he and the FOBB's cling to in order to explain away the fact they aren't actually incredibly more brilliant than other people despite their claims of being savants.

SBSoxFan
05-05-2007, 08:07 AM
When a team has Rob M, Ozuna and Erstad (through it all, a lofty .255 BA) logging major PT, then that team has little call to look at others' mediocre outfielders. At least Dye, Konerko and young players have some hope for improvement...
That said, Rob M, Ozuna, Cintron, ERstad are ozzie-style hitters. Ozzie said Thome walks too much and that Erstad is a .400 quality hitter. He's the boss, so maybe it will work.

Well, that's really being taken out of context. Ozzie said that, I think a little tongue in cheek, because no one else was (and still aren't) hitting. What good does it do for Thome to walk in those situations when he has the best chance of driving himself in?

FedEx227
05-05-2007, 12:01 PM
Yes it is; and we see fluke winners often. But, I still don't buy Beane's "crapshoot" excuse for consistent failure. I think it's just something he and the FOBB's cling to in order to explain away the fact they aren't actually incredibly more brilliant than other people despite their claims of being savants.

I agree with that. I like Billy Beane as a general manager as well as a lot of his moves, but his "crapshoot" explination doesn't do anything for me. There is no reason their teams shouldn't be able to make at least a decent run towards a title.

balke
05-05-2007, 01:00 PM
Noone's going to walk as much in the playoffs. Pitchers are at their peak at that time. Beane's philosophy will always breed talent good enough not to win it all.

Oblong
05-05-2007, 02:41 PM
So what is it about his teams that make them choke? How do you build a team that's "playoff ready" that doesn't cost $160 million a year yet consistently makes the playoffs?

chaerulez
05-05-2007, 03:02 PM
Which is why I can't respect either them, the Twins, or Braves for their consecutive postseason appearances. To have so few WS appearances, much less titles, with all those appearances tells me that they may not be doing their best to win.

Don't really know how you can question an organizations desire to win if they make the postseason almost every year.

chaerulez
05-05-2007, 03:04 PM
If Denorfia and Snelling can mantain those OBP's for their career, I'd say Beane made some good moves.

Oblong
05-05-2007, 03:51 PM
I think people forget how hard it is to make the playoffs in baseball. In hockey and basketball you only have to be average to make it. Therefore you can build teams for characteristics that you think are good for the playoffs. It's ok to sacrifice a little during the season because you know you'll get in. In football it's a little harder but you still only have to be slightly above average to make it.

HotelWhiteSox
05-13-2007, 02:23 AM
Cust, 5 HRs in 6 games, not bad

Frater Perdurabo
05-13-2007, 08:14 AM
Well, that's really being taken out of context. Ozzie said that, I think a little tongue in cheek, because no one else was (and still aren't) hitting. What good does it do for Thome to walk in those situations when he has the best chance of driving himself in?

If you want to find the reason why Thome walks so much, look at the hitters who hit behind him who are not hitting. Why should a pitcher throw strikes to Thome if PK and JD each are batting .200?

I hope that when Thome returns, PK and JD are raking. That way, Ozzie can just plug Thome into the 3-hole. If pitchers also fear PK and JD and fear putting a runner on base for either one of them, they at least are going to have to throw strikes to Thome.

jabrch
05-13-2007, 11:06 AM
IIRC from Moneyball (read a few years ago) and subsequent BB interviews, Beane looks for aspects of the game that are undervalued by other teams. The OBP/walks was an example that he talked about in Moneyball. That changes over time, as teams learn from the success of others. So, the amount that teams are willing to pay for OBP has gone up significantly. It is no longer undervalued, and he has to look at other aspects of the game that may be. At least that is what I believe I've heard him say in interviews.

Now, taking that into account, does this indicate that he's stockpiling these outfielders, because he thinks that that type of player is undervalued? Or is he could just be plugging holes on his team, taking several players, assuming that not all will pan out? (That's essentially what KW did with pitchers this off season.)

Good point - Beane's theory on markets was you could do well by finding what was undervalued. He was right - at the time .250 hitters who could walk enough to get on 35-38% of the time were undervalued. That correction happened a while ago. Then Beane was rumored to have been pursuing defense. That didn't work because defense can either lose you a game or not, but over the course of a 162 game season you won't win many games with defense.

I'm sure someone else will eventually find something that shifts to being undervalued. And I'm sure it will be a genius who revolutionizes the game, just like Beane. But in these moves, Beane is stockpiling failed former prospects. Since even top prospects have a low hit rate, stockpiling bad ones seems to be a very low risk, high reward strategy, that will have a very low success rate. It actually sounds like some of the moves KW has made - think Floyd, Sisco and Aardsma except that KW has been focusing on arms, not bats.

With the spoils of the steroid era in Oakland starting to wane (no longer does he have much left of his big 3 hitters or pitchers, and the residuals he got from trading them are starting to slip away. The Next Big 3 arms are not going to materialize as planned and the future bats are quickly falling apart.) Beane is going to be forced to do something drasticly different soon. The new park will maybe provide more revenue, and allow Beane to make another effort in the FA market - somewhere he has had very little success. LAA is the class of the west. The Wildcard won't come from there. It will be interesting to see how Beane adjusts.

jabrch
05-13-2007, 11:07 AM
Cust, 5 HRs in 6 games, not bad


Never was his power in doubt.

That doesn't mean he is not a bust.

Arkham
05-21-2007, 09:48 PM
Seeing as this thread's already been resurrected once, I'll chime in on this:

The only flaw with this theory are the guys/teams that win consistently.

2000: Yankees
2001: Diamondbacks
2002: Angels
2003: Marlins
2004: Red Sawx
2005: SOX
2006: Cardinals

Who are these teams that win consistently?

Yeah, you'll get the occasional dynasty in baseball, but it's really pretty rare in the modern era.