PDA

View Full Version : BA Comments on Beane


Hitmenof77
01-08-2008, 06:54 PM
But Oakland's farm system had fallen into such a state of disrepair that the A's decided they had to shed Haren and Swisher to bring in some minor league talent for the future.

Billy Beane has proven himself to be one of the game's best general managers, but how he escapes blame for the collapse of his farm system is beyond me. ..................

Funny, I seem to remember reading a book a few years ago about how the A's were revolutionizing the draft.


http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/265412.html

Hmm what book would that be? :)

FarWestChicago
01-08-2008, 06:58 PM
Billy Beane has proven himself to be one of the game's best general managers, but how he escapes blame for the collapse of his farm system is beyond me. ..................:fobbgod:

Worship is all about faith. :wink:

Tragg
01-08-2008, 08:07 PM
What happened to Beane's reinvigeration 3 years when he traded Mulder and Hudson for prospects? They got exactly zero for Hudson. They got some middle reliever and Haren for Mulder; Haren's a decent 5th starter, but he's no Mulder. They should pound him for bad trades (hopefully another to come).

Joe Sheehan declared in his 1996 preview that not only did Oakland have the best 1-5 staff in the league, their 5-10 in the minors would be better right then than 1/2 of the teams. (he also predicted 98 wins for Oakland).

Whitesox029
01-08-2008, 08:14 PM
I have to admit, I saw this thread title and thought "Who cares what Brian Anderson thinks about Billy Beane?"

JRIG
01-08-2008, 08:27 PM
They got exactly zero for Hudson. They got some middle reliever and Haren for Mulder; Haren's a decent 5th starter, but he's no Mulder.

A decent 5th starter for what? An All-Star team? I'd shudder to think of a rotation where Dan Haren is considered merely a 5th starter.

santo=dorf
01-08-2008, 08:36 PM
John Schuerholz spanked Beane on the Hudson trade, and Billy got hosed by Dave Littlebrain with Jason Kendall's fat contract. :o:

They got some middle reliever and Haren for Mulder; Haren's a decent 5th starter, but he's no Mulder. They should pound him for bad trades (hopefully another to come).

:?:
In case you missed it, Haren just brought back a huge package for the A's.
Since the Trade:
Mulder (in the crappy NL Central): 22-18, 5.00 ERA, 309.1 IP, 42 HR, 164 K's, 1.58 WHIP
Haren (in the AL): 43-34, 3.64 ERA, 662.2 IP, 81 HR, 531 K's, 1.21 WHIP.

I mean, that's not even close. How many 5th starters averaged a 3.64 ERA and 1.21 WHIP over the past 3 years. :kukoo:

One other thing, the A's also received Daric Barton in the Mulder trade. Daric had a monster call up last September, and was very highly rated in the St. Louis Cardinals minor league system.

FedEx227
01-08-2008, 08:40 PM
A decent 5th starter for what? An All-Star team? I'd shudder to think of a rotation where Dan Haren is considered merely a 5th starter.

Clearly 5th starter numbers...

Oakland career averages (2005-2007):
Wins: 14.3
Losses: 11.3
IP: 220
SO: 177
BB: 51
ERA: 3.64
WHIP: 1.21

FarWestChicago
01-08-2008, 08:55 PM
A decent 5th starter for what? An All-Star team? I'd shudder to think of a rotation where Dan Haren is considered merely a 5th starter.Yeah, who would the other four guys be? :D:

ilsox7
01-08-2008, 08:57 PM
Yeah, who would the other four guys be? :D:

DLS is obviously the ace of that rotation.

FarWestChicago
01-08-2008, 08:58 PM
DLS is obviously the ace of that rotation.Excellent! :redneck

JRIG
01-08-2008, 09:06 PM
DLS is obviously the ace of that rotation.

With Jeremy Reed playing CF :cool:. Even a stathead like me can admit I was wrong on that one.

FarWestChicago
01-08-2008, 09:24 PM
With Jeremy Reed playing CF :cool:. :rolling:

batmanZoSo
01-08-2008, 10:25 PM
Billy Beane 4 LIFE

Hitmenof77
01-08-2008, 11:15 PM
The only thing I agreed with Beane in the book, was too many scouts look at a player and say he's fat or whatever and forget to look at his ability. I think he quote was something like "We're not selling jeans."

Yes conditioning is a concern, some players can eat their way out of baseball. But damn don't pass up somebody just because he's fat or out of shape. That can be fixed pretty quickly.

BUT I would be careful trading for any Beane Sprout pitchers. Hudson, never hurt with the A's, spent a lot of time on the DL.

Mulder, rarely if ever hurt with the A's, nothing but shoulder problems with the Cardinals.

Zito, never or rarely hurt with the A's, and while he hasn't been on the DL, something is clearly wrong with him.

It will be interesting to see if Harden breaks down with the DBacks.

Tragg
01-08-2008, 11:59 PM
A decent 5th starter for what? An All-Star team? I'd shudder to think of a rotation where Dan Haren is considered merely a 5th starter.
My mistake - I confused him with Hardin. Anyway, they got 1 pitcher, so far, out of both deals. There is also a "time value of money" aspect to these deals.

rdivaldi
01-09-2008, 01:53 AM
What always bugs me is that when Beane drafted Hudson, Mulder and Zito from 1997- 1999 those were the only 3 players plus Eric Byrnes that were worth a squirt. He completely missed on 4 picks in the first round in 1997.

He lives on the reputation of those 3 pitchers, because he hasn't gotten anywhere near that quality since.

Hitmenof77
01-09-2008, 02:34 AM
What always bugs me is that when Beane drafted Hudson, Mulder and Zito from 1997- 1999 those were the only 3 players plus Eric Byrnes that were worth a squirt. He completely missed on 4 picks in the first round in 1997.

He lives on the reputation of those 3 pitchers, because he hasn't gotten anywhere near that quality since.


Well his "Moneyball" draft, where he had a ton of high picks, only produced Swisher and Teahan.

mjmcend
01-09-2008, 03:28 AM
Well his "Moneyball" draft, where he had a ton of high picks, only produced Swisher and Teahan.

And Blanton.

That's a also quite a bit better than the Sox last 7 first round picks.

Podera, McCulloch, Broadway, Fields, Anderson, Ring, and Honel.

SBSoxFan
01-09-2008, 04:11 PM
And Blanton.

That's a also quite a bit better than the Sox last 7 first round picks.

Podera, McCulloch, Broadway, Fields, Anderson, Ring, and Honel.

Isn't the jury still out on Podera and Broadway? Also, it looks like Fields is going to be pretty darn good, much better offensively than Swisher.

russ99
01-09-2008, 04:24 PM
The only issue with the Moneyball philosophy, is that the A's never won the Series.

Also, any competitive advantage only lasts a year or two until the rest of the league catches wind of it and adopts those same ideas.

Not to say Beane's not a good GM especially under a tight budget and an expert drafter, but there's no more statistical advantages.

FedEx227
01-09-2008, 04:32 PM
The only issue with the Moneyball philosophy, is that the A's never won the Series.

Also, any competitive advantage only lasts a year or two until the rest of the league catches wind of it and adopts those same ideas.

Not to say Beane's not a good GM especially under a tight budget and an expert drafter, but there's no more statistical advantages.

Great post. That's exactly how it is yet people don't understand. Moneyball isn't ONE thing, it's not OBP and power... it's whatever Beane or the Oakland feel has the most value at this point in time. Last year they were big on trying to get failed first round picks, this year they're going for a multitude of prospects.

What Beane did 4-5 years ago isn't feasible anymore because so many other teams have adapted to that way of play (Boston, Toronto to name a few) that it is near impossible for Beane to get VALUE out of those types of players, so he moves on to something else, whether these new methods will be successful remains to be seen.

Hitmenof77
01-09-2008, 05:28 PM
Great post. That's exactly how it is yet people don't understand. Moneyball isn't ONE thing, it's not OBP and power... it's whatever Beane or the Oakland feel has the most value at this point in time. Last year they were big on trying to get failed first round picks, this year they're going for a multitude of prospects.

What Beane did 4-5 years ago isn't feasible anymore because so many other teams have adapted to that way of play (Boston, Toronto to name a few) that it is near impossible for Beane to get VALUE out of those types of players, so he moves on to something else, whether these new methods will be successful remains to be seen.


Yeah how did the Adam Johnson, Twins failed 1st pick in 2000 or 01, work out for Beane?

grv1974
01-09-2008, 05:39 PM
I have to admit, I saw this thread title and thought "Who cares what Brian Anderson thinks about Billy Beane?"

Me, too. LOL

mjmcend
01-09-2008, 06:47 PM
Isn't the jury still out on Podera and Broadway? Also, it looks like Fields is going to be pretty darn good, much better offensively than Swisher.

Podera, definitely, but I doubt Broadway will even be as good as Blanton. I like Fields a lot, it is a huge stretch to say he will be much better than Swisher. He will probably have more power, but he won't come close to Swisher in OBP.

3 out 7 in one year is light years better drafting than 3 out 7 over 7 years (and that assumes both Podrea and Broadway become regulars).

soxtalker
01-09-2008, 07:41 PM
Great post. That's exactly how it is yet people don't understand. Moneyball isn't ONE thing, it's not OBP and power... it's whatever Beane or the Oakland feel has the most value at this point in time. Last year they were big on trying to get failed first round picks, this year they're going for a multitude of prospects.

What Beane did 4-5 years ago isn't feasible anymore because so many other teams have adapted to that way of play (Boston, Toronto to name a few) that it is near impossible for Beane to get VALUE out of those types of players, so he moves on to something else, whether these new methods will be successful remains to be seen.

I think you're right on most of this. In fact, IIRC, Beane even has stated a number of times after Moneyball that he was looking at/for statistics other than OBP. The key was identifying features that other teams undervalued and putting them together to get a complete team. I suspect that's essentially what KW does, though he doesn't rely very much on statistical tools to identify those features. As far as the competition from Boston, etc. taking a similar approach with bigger budgets -- well, it will be interesting to see how Beane changes when A's move to the new ball park in silicon valley.

russ99
01-09-2008, 10:05 PM
I think you're right on most of this. In fact, IIRC, Beane even has stated a number of times after Moneyball that he was looking at/for statistics other than OBP. The key was identifying features that other teams undervalued and putting them together to get a complete team. I suspect that's essentially what KW does, though he doesn't rely very much on statistical tools to identify those features. As far as the competition from Boston, etc. taking a similar approach with bigger budgets -- well, it will be interesting to see how Beane changes when A's move to the new ball park in silicon valley.

From what I understand the A's fans aren't exactly on board with the whole move to Fremont, which isn't really Silicon Valley, it's more like East Bay, though it's not too far from San Jose and across the bridge from San Mateo.

The core fans feel that they're moving away from the base in Oakland and to a place where more affluent (essentially Giants) fans can pick up the team. Thus the new owner is looked upon as a carpetbagger.

It would almost be like the Sox moving to Lincoln Park and embracing all the chads and trixies... :o:

rdivaldi
01-09-2008, 10:32 PM
And Blanton.

Sorry guys but that's not even close to Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Beane is getting a pass on his performances. Except for the very inconsistent Huston Street, his 2003- 2005 drafts are looking to be complete busts.

BadBobbyJenks
01-09-2008, 11:02 PM
My mistake - I confused him with Hardin. Anyway, they got 1 pitcher, so far, out of both deals. There is also a "time value of money" aspect to these deals.


Well Rich Harden is absolutely nasty, when healthy. Even if you did confuse the two, Harden is a dominant pitcher who just cant keep his shoulder attached.

Grzegorz
01-10-2008, 05:38 AM
Also, it looks like Fields is going to be pretty darn good, much better offensively than Swisher.

Fields much better than Swisher? You mean as a total baseball player or just offensively?

SBSoxFan
01-10-2008, 10:00 AM
Podera, definitely, but I doubt Broadway will even be as good as Blanton. I like Fields a lot, it is a huge stretch to say he will be much better than Swisher. He will probably have more power, but he won't come close to Swisher in OBP.

Swisher strikes out a lot. With experience and, hopefully, batting in the middle of a stacked lineup, if Fields can cut down on his strikeouts some and increase his walks a lot, he can approach Swisher's OBP. In their first seasons, each player posted an OPS+ of 101. So, maybe it is a stretch to say Fields will be much better, but not to say he will be at least as good, with more power and more speed.

3 out 7 in one year is light years better drafting than 3 out 7 over 7 years (and that assumes both Podrea and Broadway become regulars).

I wasn't aware of the time frame.

Fields much better than Swisher? You mean as a total baseball player or just offensively?

I was speaking offensively.

fquaye149
01-10-2008, 10:18 AM
I was speaking offensively.


He's got a long long long long long way to go. Even if Swisher does strike out a lot (ho hum), he has an excellent OBP. Fields's ability to get on base doesn't even APPROACH that, even if his power is slightly better than Swisher's

CRAW
01-10-2008, 10:29 AM
I have to admit, I saw this thread title and thought "Who cares what Brian Anderson thinks about Billy Beane?"

LOL! Me too! I was like, "BA? Hmmm...BA.... Oh, Brian Anderson..." ha!

SBSoxFan
01-10-2008, 12:33 PM
He's got a long long long long long way to go. Even if Swisher does strike out a lot (ho hum), he has an excellent OBP. Fields's ability to get on base doesn't even APPROACH that, even if his power is slightly better than Swisher's

Their first year OBP's are pretty close. Maybe Swisher can teach Fields how to get hit by pitch more!

oeo
01-10-2008, 12:51 PM
He's got a long long long long long way to go. Even if Swisher does strike out a lot (ho hum), he has an excellent OBP. Fields's ability to get on base doesn't even APPROACH that, even if his power is slightly better than Swisher's

It was his rookie year. We'll see how he does this year before we can say he has a long way to go. As mentioned already, Swisher had a .322 OBP (and batted .236) in his first season...he then followed it up with a .372 in 2006.

Fields improved a ton on his plate discipline in AAA from 2006 to 2007 (54 walks in 124 games to 39 walks in 56 games). In September of 2007, he had a .368 OBP...let's hold off judgment.

fquaye149
01-10-2008, 01:56 PM
It was his rookie year. We'll see how he does this year before we can say he has a long way to go. As mentioned already, Swisher had a .322 OBP (and batted .236) in his first season...he then followed it up with a .372 in 2006.

Fields improved a ton on his plate discipline in AAA from 2006 to 2007 (54 walks in 124 games to 39 walks in 56 games). In September of 2007, he had a .368 OBP...let's hold off judgment.

So in other words "it's too early in his career to say he has a long way to go"

um...ok:?:

SBSoxFan
01-10-2008, 02:56 PM
So in other words "it's too early in his career to say he has a long way to go"

um...ok:?:

No, what we're saying is that "it's too early in his career to say he has a long long long long long way to go." :tongue:

fquaye149
01-10-2008, 03:11 PM
No, what we're saying is that "it's too early in his career to say he has a long long long long long way to go." :tongue:

Ha.

I'm as optimistic about Fields as the next guy, but Swisher's 06 or 07 is what we HOPE Fields will amount to someday (plus a handful of HR's on top of that).

Swisher has pretty much already fulfilled my hopes for Fields (minus some power)...and unless you put a lot of stock on batting average (which you shouldn't) I don't see how you could hope for more than Fields OPS+ing 125 next year (when he's 25...just like Swisher did when he was 25)

Fields has a long way to go. Not a long long long long long way to go, perhaps, but at least a long way to go. He needs to jack his OBP up about 70 points in his FIRST FULL YEAR next year just to keep pace with Swisher in terms of age.

SBSoxFan
01-11-2008, 07:46 AM
Ha.

I'm as optimistic about Fields as the next guy, but Swisher's 06 or 07 is what we HOPE Fields will amount to someday (plus a handful of HR's on top of that).

Swisher has pretty much already fulfilled my hopes for Fields (minus some power)...and unless you put a lot of stock on batting average (which you shouldn't) I don't see how you could hope for more than Fields OPS+ing 125 next year (when he's 25...just like Swisher did when he was 25)

Fields has a long way to go. Not a long long long long long way to go, perhaps, but at least a long way to go. He needs to jack his OBP up about 70 points in his FIRST FULL YEAR next year just to keep pace with Swisher in terms of age.

I'm not sure age when you reach the big leagues is that important, at least in the short term. However, from your post, it sounds like each player had their first extended big league action at the age of 24. Swisher's OBP was 322 and Fields was 308. Each posted an OPS+ of 101. So, we'll see what happens next year.

I have a question about OPS+. Does the baseline change from year to year? If so, doesn't this mean that it's unfair to compare OPS+ values from different years since, for example, an OPS+ of 101 in 2004 doesn't mean the same as an OPS+ of 101 in 2005? If so, OPS+ is a bad metric.

Finally, let me throw this out for the sake of argument. Swisher's HBP added somewhere around 17 points to his OBP each of the last 2 years. For a slugger, isn't that a high risk, low reward way to get on base? In addition, those on base times are somewhat "empty" because it doesn't afford the chance to drive in a run. It's a similar argument people here use against "slap hitters" like Jerry Owens --- all those singles don't drive in runs. Well, at least Owens has a good chance to get himself into scoring position afterwards, Swisher does not. Players like an Owens and a Swisher (or Fields) serve very different roles on a team. If anything, an Owens type is the one who should get HBP a lot, a la Craig Biggio.

soxinem1
01-11-2008, 08:00 AM
I have to admit, I saw this thread title and thought "Who cares what Brian Anderson thinks about Billy Beane?"

I waited for awhile to read this when I first saw the title myself. I thought our 'BA' was trying to suck up to BB to play for the ABB's (A's By the Bay) when I first read this.

So if BA would push for a trade to OAK and play for BB, would that make him ABBA?