Thank you Peter Gammons (re: Moneyball)

[John Galt]

I've always liked Gammons, but he slipped a bit in his writing and he is a well-known plug hack who lets all sorts of crap in his internet columns. However, I was happy to see him correctly state what Moneyball is about:

"Oakland got a lot of notice for drafting high school players after the first couple of rounds. Why is this surprising? The college pitching got taken early. And "Moneyball" isn't about college vs. high school, it's about finding value, and high school players in this draft had more value after the first 2-3 rounds because so many teams (20 of 30 in the first round) went with college players early. A's GM Billy Beane first went with on-base percentage players, then so did most everyone else, and those players got too expensive for one of the four lowest payrolls. Then he turned to defense, which was undervalued [Boston did so last July 31, and won the World Series]."

It seems 99% of the discussions and articles I see about Beane and Moneyball miss this basic point. It was never about OBP or college players; it was about finding "value" in the market by exploiting softness in the market. Moneyball was never about finding certain types of players - it was and is about finding players who are undervalued by the market.

[kcchief19]

I would tend to strongly agree with that analysis. I read Moneyball and I thought at the time that people were missing the point and jumping to the wrong conclusions, but I couldn't verbalize my thoughts as eloquently as you did in that last paragraph.

[ISiddiqui]

It is about finding value, but a part of it also was about OBP (at least). After all, James considers it to be one of the most important stats out there. Though he wasn't writing just for low payroll teams. Beane realized he had to find cheap, good players and it was taking James' observations and plugging them in that he could do so.

[JPhillips]

At its heart Moneyball was really a business book and not a baseball book. It was about using analysis to outsmart your business competitors.

The problem for Bean is that it looks like he has such a small budget that all the analysis and good buys can't kep them competitve long-term.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is about finding value, but a part of it also was about OBP (at least). After all, James considers it to be one of the most important stats out there. Though he wasn't writing just for low payroll teams. Beane realized he had to find cheap, good players and it was taking James' observations and plugging them in that he could do so.

At the time OBP was an undervalued stat, so it was an emphasis of the book and the Moneyball "philosophy." However, now that the Jones's have caught up and OBP is relatively well-valued, Moneyball requires you to look at other under-valued parts of the market. It may be one day that SB's and high AVG (but low OBP) players become undervalued and Moneyball would say you should sign those players. Small market teams have to look for value signings and the idea of Moneyball really requires that you aren't wedded to any particular type of player.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At its heart Moneyball was really a business book and not a baseball book. It was about using analysis to outsmart your business competitors.

The problem for Bean is that it looks like he has such a small budget that all the analysis and good buys can't kep them competitve long-term.

Just to add to your last point (but to slightly disagree), Giambi was a great Moneyball player because he produced above his value. When he was on the open market, his perceived value was too high for the A's (although it turned out the difference was much larger than they thought). Right now, the A's are doing well collecting pre-arbitration talents and "value" contracts to make a run because that is where the market is a bit softer. A player can be a "Moneyball player" one day and not the next simply by becoming a free agent. And I think the A's could very well be a good, playoff team next year on the tight budget they have.

[NYFAN]

very interesting discussion!

[Crapshoot]

Bingo. The idiots who argue it ignores defense fail to see the team that the A's were the last 3 years- they were built on good defensive players, because they started to apply DIPS. I cringe when I hear a sportswriter mention Moneyball, because half of them havent read it and are convinced its about "OBP". The OBP is worth 3 times slugging is an example of this- he's referring to the market value of OBP as it correlates to runs scored compared to the market value of slugging to runs scored- yet nevertheless, some numbskull insists its valuing OBP at 3 times slugging.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Bingo. The idiots who argue it ignores defense fail to see the team that the A's were the last 3 years- they were built on good defensive players, because they started to apply DIPS. I cringe when I hear a sportswriter mention Moneyball, because half of them havent read it and are convinced its about "OBP". The OBP is worth 3 times slugging is an example of this- he's referring to the market value of OBP as it correlates to runs scored compared to the market value of slugging to runs scored- yet nevertheless, some numbskull insists its valuing OBP at 3 times slugging.

Which is why I have had such a hard time forgiving Joe Morgan. He really isn't a bad announcer, but to repeatedly say Moneyball says defense doesn't matter and twice (in print) say Beane wrote Moneyball is just really, really bad.

[JPhillips]

John: Maybe, but I'm not convinced the pitching trades are good enough and Zito looks to be finished. I think Beane does a great job, but when he can't keep any of his players past four years or so its bound to show.

Basically, I think baseball's economics are hopelessly fucked.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

John: Maybe, but I'm not convinced the pitching trades are good enough and Zito looks to be finished. I think Beane does a great job, but when he can't keep any of his players past four years or so its bound to show.

Basically, I think baseball's economics are hopelessly fucked.

Haren has almost identicable numbers to Mulder and is cheaper and younger. Hudson hasn't exactly lit the world on fire. I think it is early to say Zito is done. His Cy Young season showed all the signs of a fluke, but there is no reason he won't be a ~3.80 ERA innings eater. He has done well after the start of the season. The pitching hasn't really been the problem, and I guess I'm more optimistic their offense will improve.

And I'm not totally sold on baseball's economics being screwed because I think stupidity and bad profit-driven owners keep a pretty level playing field over time. If only Bud would go away.

[JPhillips]

I just think its very hard to always be trading away proven talent for potential talent. He's had a tremendous avergae, but everytime one doesn't pan out it really hurts.

Some of my bitterness comes from being a Reds fan. We don't have a huge payroll and a stupid owner/GM.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just think its very hard to always be trading away proven talent for potential talent. He's had a tremendous avergae, but everytime one doesn't pan out it really hurts.

Some of my bitterness comes from being a Reds fan. We don't have a huge payroll and a stupid owner/GM.

And as a Nats fan, we have your wonderboy castoff GM. I'm not sure which is worse. It is even worse, in a way, that the Nats are doing well because it may lead the new owners to actually keep Bowden on. While Robinson has done a great job, Bowden's Guzman and Castilla signings still pain me. Sure, the team is getting lucky, but we would be even "luckier" without those two players around.

[JPhillips]

As much as I never thought I'd say it, I'd love to have him back. Bowden can be fun, but his real problem is his lack of skill building the farm system. He made a number of good veteran trades, but eventually the inability of the Reds system to create any players, especially pitchers, drove him out.

The Nats are awfully fun. I need to get to RFK soon. Looking at the team stats I have no idea how they keep winning. GO NATS!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

At the time OBP was an undervalued stat, so it was an emphasis of the book and the Moneyball "philosophy." However, now that the Jones's have caught up and OBP is relatively well-valued, Moneyball requires you to look at other under-valued parts of the market. It may be one day that SB's and high AVG (but low OBP) players become undervalued and Moneyball would say you should sign those players. Small market teams have to look for value signings and the idea of Moneyball really requires that you aren't wedded to any particular type of player.

This is pretty much what I got out of Moneyball as well. Although, the act of stealing bases was somewhat poo-pooed by Beane and co. because of the risk for an out. But, that's independent of the "Moneyball philosophy". In the end, it's all about value and improvement over replacement level.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is pretty much what I got out of Moneyball as well. Although, the act of stealing bases was somewhat poo-pooed by Beane and co. because of the risk for an out. But, that's independent of the "Moneyball philosophy". In the end, it's all about value and improvement over replacement level.

I would argue that the stolen base viewpoint is in line with Moneyball. To me Moneyball is about risk/reward and being rewarded for the risk that you take. You get a better reward by buying low.. i.e. High OBP guys early or defense later. In the case of stolen bases the risk is to high relative to the reward.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by henry296

I would argue that the stolen base viewpoint is in line with Moneyball. To me Moneyball is about risk/reward and being rewarded for the risk that you take. You get a better reward by buying low.. i.e. High OBP guys early or defense later. In the case of stolen bases the risk is to high relative to the reward.

It is for most players, but some, like Beltran, succeed at a high enough return to make it worth doing. And SB's become more valuable (and the break-even success rate drops) if overall offense goes down. So, nothing about SB's, per se, is against Moneyball values - they just were a case of extreme overvaluation in the current league.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by henry296

I would argue that the stolen base viewpoint is in line with Moneyball. To me Moneyball is about risk/reward and being rewarded for the risk that you take. You get a better reward by buying low.. i.e. High OBP guys early or defense later. In the case of stolen bases the risk is to high relative to the reward.

I guess it depends on the base stealer. If you obtain someone like Johnny Damon who steals at an 80% clip, it may make sense to have him steal bases. Whereas, if you have a Randy Winn-type who ends up between 40 and 60% in most season, maybe it isn't worth the out tradeoff.

To reiterate, Moneyball is simply about improvement over replacement value - regardless of the metric. But, one of the interesting aspects of the Moneyball theory is determining what is replacement level for things like defense and even stolen base %. You can determine replacement value for OBP, AVE, HRs and the other traditional stats, but there are many aspects of baseball that are open to debate. And, the ability to find players that offer value in a certain area that others are not as aware of is the heart of this method.

[Subby]

Moneyball did a good job of showing the value of quantitative analysis in a marketplace characeterized my "intuition and feel." The huge inefficiencies that existed at the time were corrected and now Beane is simply applying those same methods of analysis today...

That book was such an eye-opener...

[DeToxRox]

The idiot who can't read or write (Jeremy Bonderman) is now 8-4.

I liked Moneyball, but he was one high schooler who panned out.

[Easy Mac]

So the question is, has Oakland's application of moneyball actually succeeded? Its still a bit early, but have any of the player drafted using the "philosophy" actually turned out to be stars? Nick Swisher is pushed on us every game on ESPN as a future star, but he hasn't really done much. Perhaps we still need to wait a few years, but the first class hasn't really set the world on fire. (and don't even mention the Red Sox and their use of moneyball... they bought their championship, the had the second highest payroll in the league for crying out loud)

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess it depends on the base stealer. If you obtain someone like Johnny Damon who steals at an 80% clip, it may make sense to have him steal bases. Whereas, if you have a Randy Winn-type who ends up between 40 and 60% in most season, maybe it isn't worth the out tradeoff.

To reiterate, Moneyball is simply about improvement over replacement value - regardless of the metric. But, one of the interesting aspects of the Moneyball theory is determining what is replacement level for things like defense and even stolen base %. You can determine replacement value for OBP, AVE, HRs and the other traditional stats, but there are many aspects of baseball that are open to debate. And, the ability to find players that offer value in a certain area that others are not as aware of is the heart of this method.

Completely agree. The talent identification and game management are two separate issues. They may seem related because they both deal with risk/reward, but that's merely a coincidence.

Moneyball is the system that has allowed Beane to successfully identify undervalued players. That's it.

As great as Beane's talent identification system is, it is his strategy application that holds him back. Reading Moneyball made me think that if I were Art Howe I would have kicked Beane in the nuts and just said screw the whole thing. Defense plays in this well. The reason why people think DIPS means defense doesn't matter is that Beane uses it that way. Scott Hatteberg plays because Beane likes his OBP. He's a sieve defensively. Unless the ball is hit within the distance at which he can fall over and land on top of it, he isn't getting the ball. He has one of the worst range factors in the league at every position he has played.

I think what turns me off about DIPS isn't the theory itself but so many of the people who profess to love the theory. Many -- but not all -- DIPS fans think that it revolutionized baseball. In reality, much of what DIPS has done has been to somewhat quantify what we already knew but just didn't know how to express numerical. Before DIPS came along, smart baseball knew that if you strike out guys, don't walk a lot of batters and don't give up home runs you're going to be successul. Some of these DIPS fans think McCracken invented the concept. All he did was invent a tool for better measuring it.

Beane's application of the tool is completely separate. Beane uses DIPS to identify hitters who hit for average, draw walks and don't strikeout but are undervalued because they are fat and slow. No one needs DIPS to know that Carlos Beltran is a great player. But DIPS can help you see the value of a Scott Hatteberg, so long as you don't consider his defense.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

At the time OBP was an undervalued stat, so it was an emphasis of the book and the Moneyball "philosophy." However, now that the Jones's have caught up and OBP is relatively well-valued, Moneyball requires you to look at other under-valued parts of the market. It may be one day that SB's and high AVG (but low OBP) players become undervalued and Moneyball would say you should sign those players. Small market teams have to look for value signings and the idea of Moneyball really requires that you aren't wedded to any particular type of player.

Perhaps, but Beane is also a James disciple. Bill James stresses that OBP is the stat that most determines offensive success. I don't see Beane going away from that, even if it is higher valued these days.

[mhass]

I didn't that at all from Moneyball. I think he states pretty clearly that the best strategy in baseball is whatever it takes to minimize your chance of making an out. OBP is that strategy. To say that he looked for "value" is simply to explain how he was able to compete so well on the cheap. The strategy is OBP, "value" is just a function of the team's market.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So the question is, has Oakland's application of moneyball actually succeeded? Its still a bit early, but have any of the player drafted using the "philosophy" actually turned out to be stars? Nick Swisher is pushed on us every game on ESPN as a future star, but he hasn't really done much. Perhaps we still need to wait a few years, but the first class hasn't really set the world on fire. (and don't even mention the Red Sox and their use of moneyball... they bought their championship, the had the second highest payroll in the league for crying out loud)

Has Oakland's application "succeeded?" I would say no, because while the A's have had regular season success, they have flamed out in the postseason, and I think that is by and large due to the fact that while Beane is a great talent evaluator, he's a horrible strategist and strategy is too crucial in the postseason.

I have no problem pointing toward the Red Sox because if anything they prove that Oakland's application is wrong; you have to consider more than pitching and offense -- you have to consider strategy and defense. Boston did that. If Beane had been the Red Sox GM last October, the Yankees would have won game four and completed the sweep.

The key to seeing if Beane's application can be a success is what happens now that the value players he used to favor are now valued by other teams. Obviously he's looking for other undervalued barrels. It will be interesting to see if he can find them.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by mhass

I didn't that at all from Moneyball. I think he states pretty clearly that the best strategy in baseball is whatever it takes to minimize your chance of making an out. OBP is that strategy. To say that he looked for "value" is simply to explain how he was able to compete so well on the cheap. The strategy is OBP, "value" is just a function of the team's market.

I would disagree. Look at Oakland's draft choices. They didn't draft guys with a high OBP who could run like the wind and play great defense, because you draft that guy you're going to have to pay him a hefty signing bonus. Beane went for players with a high OBP who have something wrong with them that caused other teams to undervalue them, i.e., Jeremy Brown because he was slow and fat.

Originally Posted by mhass

I didn't that at all from Moneyball. I think he states pretty clearly that the best strategy in baseball is whatever it takes to minimize your chance of making an out. OBP is that strategy. To say that he looked for "value" is simply to explain how he was able to compete so well on the cheap. The strategy is OBP, "value" is just a function of the team's market.

Beane drafted Brown and Nick Swisher because they were values; he could have selected someone with an equally impressive stats with speed and defense and paid them a princely sum AND still have taken Brown and Swisher in later rounds because no one else was going to take them. It wasn't that they had value because of their OBP -- it was that other teams undervalued them because of other factors. I don't think that is a function of the team's market, I think it is a function of Beane's perception of value.

I agree market comes into a certain degree. He would rather take a chance on 10 fat guys who can hit and walk rather than draft a "can't-miss" five-tool prospect, but inevitable one of the fat kids will be able to play and can't-miss players miss all the time. But I think if Beane were GM of the Yankees, he still would have taken Jeremy Brown and Nick Swisher before anyone else would have thought about it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Has Oakland's application "succeeded?" I would say no, because while the A's have had regular season success, they have flamed out in the postseason, and I think that is by and large due to the fact that while Beane is a great talent evaluator, he's a horrible strategist and strategy is too crucial in the postseason.

I have no problem pointing toward the Red Sox because if anything they prove that Oakland's application is wrong; you have to consider more than pitching and offense -- you have to consider strategy and defense. Boston did that. If Beane had been the Red Sox GM last October, the Yankees would have won game four and completed the sweep.

The key to seeing if Beane's application can be a success is what happens now that the value players he used to favor are now valued by other teams. Obviously he's looking for other undervalued barrels. It will be interesting to see if he can find them.

I'm not sure I understand these claims. Postseason failure has been due to pitching meltdowns (the offenses of Beane's teams have actually been better in the postseason). How is that a strategic failure. I think the team has been quite successful given the payrolls. Are the Twins failures too?

I'm also not sure by what you mean about Beane being a strategist. Unless I'm misunderstanding the word, Beane doesn't determine any strategy. The players he puts on the team limit strategic choices, but that is true of any team selection.

And the A's are considering defense in their current incarnation because that is undervalued. Saying you need offense, defense, and pitching is obvious, but on the A's budget, you can't afford all three all of the time. So, you make choices based on value and hope for the best. I think Beane has done pretty damn well in that regard.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Perhaps, but Beane is also a James disciple. Bill James stresses that OBP is the stat that most determines offensive success. I don't see Beane going away from that, even if it is higher valued these days.

I think this is wrong. Beane is a Moneyball disciple and he has affinity for statistical analysis. Beane was actually a Sandy Alderson disciple if he is aligned with anyone. He recognized through sabermatic analysis that some players were undervalued. If those players become overvalued (as they are now), you have to find value elsewhere. He has done that (see Guillen and others to emphasize power, and the shift in players like Kotsay to emphasize defense). You may be right and Beane isn't truly a "Moneyball disciple" because of his preference for certain types of statistical analysis, but so far, I don't think the record really supports that.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Completely agree. The talent identification and game management are two separate issues. They may seem related because they both deal with risk/reward, but that's merely a coincidence.

Moneyball is the system that has allowed Beane to successfully identify undervalued players. That's it.

As great as Beane's talent identification system is, it is his strategy application that holds him back. Reading Moneyball made me think that if I were Art Howe I would have kicked Beane in the nuts and just said screw the whole thing. Defense plays in this well. The reason why people think DIPS means defense doesn't matter is that Beane uses it that way. Scott Hatteberg plays because Beane likes his OBP. He's a sieve defensively. Unless the ball is hit within the distance at which he can fall over and land on top of it, he isn't getting the ball. He has one of the worst range factors in the league at every position he has played.

I think what turns me off about DIPS isn't the theory itself but so many of the people who profess to love the theory. Many -- but not all -- DIPS fans think that it revolutionized baseball. In reality, much of what DIPS has done has been to somewhat quantify what we already knew but just didn't know how to express numerical. Before DIPS came along, smart baseball knew that if you strike out guys, don't walk a lot of batters and don't give up home runs you're going to be successul. Some of these DIPS fans think McCracken invented the concept. All he did was invent a tool for better measuring it.

Beane's application of the tool is completely separate. Beane uses DIPS to identify hitters who hit for average, draw walks and don't strikeout but are undervalued because they are fat and slow. No one needs DIPS to know that Carlos Beltran is a great player. But DIPS can help you see the value of a Scott Hatteberg, so long as you don't consider his defense.

I think you are misunderstanding DIPS. DIPS is a theory for pitchers. It doesn't apply to hitters. Hitters do control outcomes to a much greater extent beyond the three true outcomes (K, BB, HR). And McCracken did invent the concept in that he showed most all pitchers have very little (but some do have a little) control over balls in play. Obviously, everyone knew K's = Good and BB and HR's = Bad. However, people also assumed pitchers had MUCH GREATER control over balls in play and that was a big insight McCracked offered.

And DIPS is actually a theory that shows why defense does matter. Since pitchers can't control where the ball lands in play, range of fielders is even more important. Teams like the Yankees are discovering that fact this year.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So the question is, has Oakland's application of moneyball actually succeeded? Its still a bit early, but have any of the player drafted using the "philosophy" actually turned out to be stars? Nick Swisher is pushed on us every game on ESPN as a future star, but he hasn't really done much. Perhaps we still need to wait a few years, but the first class hasn't really set the world on fire. (and don't even mention the Red Sox and their use of moneyball... they bought their championship, the had the second highest payroll in the league for crying out loud)

I think time will be the best judge, but I do think it is also fair to count prospects that Beane has traded for. He is a pretty active GM, so players like Barton, if they pan out, should be held as good examples of the system.

Either way, I think his drafting record has been pretty good so far given the tight payroll constraints, but the better players have definitely been on the pitching side thus far. I don't think Beane has to be the best drafter for him to be a great GM, he just has to be better than similarly situated teams.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by mhass

I didn't that at all from Moneyball. I think he states pretty clearly that the best strategy in baseball is whatever it takes to minimize your chance of making an out. OBP is that strategy. To say that he looked for "value" is simply to explain how he was able to compete so well on the cheap. The strategy is OBP, "value" is just a function of the team's market.

But the market isn't static. OBP was a "value" - now, notsomuch. While the Yankees still believe Womack was a good player, the rest of the league largely moved away from the Goodwin and Hunter type players. Now, Beane is forced to adapt. When he acquired Guillen a while ago, he said a similar thing. Guillen was a horrible BB guy, but he had under-valued power. I think that shows his adaptibility.

Do I think Beane is perfect? No, far from it (exhibit 1 - Hatteberg contract). But I do think he is easily in the top 5 GM's in the game.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think this is wrong. Beane is a Moneyball disciple and he has affinity for statistical analysis. Beane was actually a Sandy Alderson disciple if he is aligned with anyone. He recognized through sabermatic analysis that some players were undervalued. If those players become overvalued (as they are now), you have to find value elsewhere. He has done that (see Guillen and others to emphasize power, and the shift in players like Kotsay to emphasize defense). You may be right and Beane isn't truly a "Moneyball disciple" because of his preference for certain types of statistical analysis, but so far, I don't think the record really supports that.

That's what I got from "MoneyBall" especially with Beane having all of Bill James' abstracts on the shelf. I agree with mhass who said Beane values OBP most in offense and since there wasn't much value placed on it, he got some GREAT value. I don't think he'll get similar value in the future, because I don't see him going away from OBP. Perhaps he'll get players with decent OBP and decent speed, as opposed to players with high OBP and no speed, but OBP will always be something to focus on. After all, all the 'stat guys' like Riccardi, DePodesta all would have told him that the #1 stat that determines offensive success is OBP.

And James would tell you that Alderson was his type of guy. A guy who valued walks and batting eye before the OBP stat was accepted.

And I don't think OBP is overvalued at all. In fact I still think it is somewhat underrated. People still focus on batting average over OBP. When OBP replaces BA in common baseball parlance, then it'll be valued to where it should be.

Beane may indeed be looking for the best value, but I think he understands that focusing on OBP (which best determines what scores runs) still provides him high value.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's what I got from "MoneyBall" especially with Beane having all of Bill James' abstracts on the shelf. I agree with mhass who said Beane values OBP most in offense and since there wasn't much value placed on it, he got some GREAT value. I don't think he'll get similar value in the future, because I don't see him going away from OBP. Perhaps he'll get players with decent OBP and decent speed, as opposed to players with high OBP and no speed, but OBP will always be something to focus on. After all, all the 'stat guys' like Riccardi, DePodesta all would have told him that the #1 stat that determines offensive success is OBP.

And James would tell you that Alderson was his type of guy. A guy who valued walks and batting eye before the OBP stat was accepted.

And I don't think OBP is overvalued at all. In fact I still think it is somewhat underrated. People still focus on batting average over OBP. When OBP replaces BA in common baseball parlance, then it'll be valued to where it should be.

Beane may indeed be looking for the best value, but I think he understands that focusing on OBP (which best determines what scores runs) still provides him high value.

I don't think we are really disagreeing, but I'm having trouble explaining my emphasis in posting.

Beane saw James and other sabermatic work as proving OBP was undervalued. He exploited that market inefficiency.

If OBP becomes valued by the rest of the league so that each point of OBP is being overpaid in dollar terms, then Moneyball dictates you look for other market inefficiences (because there always are some).

OBP first only makes sense if OBP/$ ratio is proper. If Brad Wilkerson (an OBP player) starts getting paid $15 million and Jose Guillen (a non-OBP player) gets $1 million, then you throw OBP out the window and sign Guillen.

[cthomer5000]

At that moment it was about OBP. Overall it's pure economics. You want the best possibly bang for your buck, which means constantly exploiting the the market, taking advantage of whatever it's currently undervaluing.

[Draft Dodger]

I think Peter Gammons is great and all, but I'm not sure he really deserved to get put on the $20 bill

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm not sure I understand these claims. Postseason failure has been due to pitching meltdowns (the offenses of Beane's teams have actually been better in the postseason). How is that a strategic failure. I think the team has been quite successful given the payrolls. Are the Twins failures too.

Unfortunately yes. The goal is to win a title, not come close. I think you need to look at the stats again. Almost without fail the A's have performed worse offensive in the playoffs than they did during the regular season. The pitching stunk too, which didn't help. I agree the teams have been successful given the payroll, but if you have the best or one of the best records in baseball and have the second-half runs like Oakland has had, you should do better than flameout in the playoffs every year.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm also not sure by what you mean about Beane being a strategist. Unless I'm misunderstanding the word, Beane doesn't determine any strategy. The players he puts on the team limit strategic choices, but that is true of any team selection.

In Moneyball and other media accounts, it is painstakingly clear that Beane wants his manager to do exactly what he tells him to do. Beane calls the shots as to who is on the roster, who plays, what position they play and what the lineup is. He had meltdowns whenever Art Howe did something he didn't want him to do. Beane absolutely determines strategy for his manager and he expects his manager to do exactly that. I doubt that there is a bigger micromanager among GMs in baseball than Beane. I would imagine his micromanaging reaches a fever pitch in the postseason, why might also explain the flameouts.

Originally Posted by John Galt

And the A's are considering defense in their current incarnation because that is undervalued. Saying you need offense, defense, and pitching is obvious, but on the A's budget, you can't afford all three all of the time. So, you make choices based on value and hope for the best. I think Beane has done pretty damn well in that regard.

Are they valuing defense now? I haven't been following the situation closely this season, but he has not valued it in the past. I think you're acknowledging the point without realizing it. If you can afford all three, you have to make priorities. I think it's clear that Beane made offense and pitching a priority in the past and said screw the defense. That's why people who don't pay attention think DIPS means defense doesn't matter; because in the past Beane acted like it didn't matter by putting together a team that had tight pitching and solid hitting but poor defense.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think you are misunderstanding DIPS. DIPS is a theory for pitchers. It doesn't apply to hitters. Hitters do control outcomes to a much greater extent beyond the three true outcomes (K, BB, HR). And McCracken did invent the concept in that he showed most all pitchers have very little (but some do have a little) control over balls in play. Obviously, everyone knew K's = Good and BB and HR's = Bad. However, people also assumed pitchers had MUCH GREATER control over balls in play and that was a big insight McCracked offered.

And DIPS is actually a theory that shows why defense does matter. Since pitchers can't control where the ball lands in play, range of fielders is even more important. Teams like the Yankees are discovering that fact this year.

Agreed that I grouped two different concepts together in a confusing way.

McCracken discovered the statistic, but I think he is given way too much credit for his "breakthrough" research. That's just a personal opinion. I don't have the statistics at my disposal to back up that opinion, but if I ever win the lottery and have a couple of weeks to put together the numbers I'll explain why.

I agree that if you REALLY understand DIPS then you understand the importance of defense and range. But like I said, I think people think DIPS means defense doesn't matter because Beane and some others have valued a player's OBP over defense.

[mhass]

I see the point you guys are making about why the players were OBP-high only. I buy that to a great extent. But Beane's strategy is still to win by getting guys on and not making outs. I don't think he's going to 'Moneyball' another way to get guys on and not make out (i.e., find a way to do it on the cheap). My point is that now that other teams are on to this or at least aware, the result is not that Beane has moved to a different strategy, it's that he can't afford the one he's been using.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Unfortunately yes. The goal is to win a title, not come close. I think you need to look at the stats again. Almost without fail the A's have performed worse offensive in the playoffs than they did during the regular season.

I guess I see differing degrees of success and failure and I don't think the A's are bad for having made the playoffs four straight years on a limited payroll. I think that is damn good. As for the post-season run totals:

2003: 18/5 runs/games postseason; 768/162 regular season
2002: 26/5; 800/162
2001: 12/5; 884/162
2000: 23/5; 947/162

Total Postseason: 79/20 = 3.95/game
Postseason without 2001: 67/15 = 4.47
Total Regular Season: 3399/648 = 5.24/game

In other words, if you take out 2001, the A's have performed at or above target for a 5.24 R/Game team in the postseason (when you adjust for difficulty of opposing pitching in the postseason). The offense has not really been the problem.

Originally Posted by kcchief19

In Moneyball and other media accounts, it is painstakingly clear that Beane wants his manager to do exactly what he tells him to do. Beane calls the shots as to who is on the roster, who plays, what position they play and what the lineup is. He had meltdowns whenever Art Howe did something he didn't want him to do. Beane absolutely determines strategy for his manager and he expects his manager to do exactly that. I doubt that there is a bigger micromanager among GMs in baseball than Beane. I would imagine his micromanaging reaches a fever pitch in the postseason, why might also explain the flameouts.

I don't think Beane is different than any GM in the league in this regard. I've never read anything to say he has exceeded normal involvement - where are you getting this from (besides second hand accounts). He does (as any GM does) want his manager to use the players he has instead of the players he doesn't have and that is a good idea.

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Are they valuing defense now? I haven't been following the situation closely this season, but he has not valued it in the past. I think you're acknowledging the point without realizing it. If you can afford all three, you have to make priorities. I think it's clear that Beane made offense and pitching a priority in the past and said screw the defense. That's why people who don't pay attention think DIPS means defense doesn't matter; because in the past Beane acted like it didn't matter by putting together a team that had tight pitching and solid hitting but poor defense.

It's not "screw the defense" - it is paying for what you can afford based on the overall player. In the past, players like Jaha and Stairs sucked at defense, but were so cheap, they were worth it. Now, he has players like Crosby and Kotsay who are better values precisely because of their defense. The whole point is to find value whereever it may be.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Agreed that I grouped two different concepts together in a confusing way.

McCracken discovered the statistic, but I think he is given way too much credit for his "breakthrough" research. That's just a personal opinion. I don't have the statistics at my disposal to back up that opinion, but if I ever win the lottery and have a couple of weeks to put together the numbers I'll explain why.

I agree that if you REALLY understand DIPS then you understand the importance of defense and range. But like I said, I think people think DIPS means defense doesn't matter because Beane and some others have valued a player's OBP over defense.

I'm totally lost. DIPS says NOTHING about players you choose on offense. And I don't know why you think Beane is even a "DIPS guy." He uses statistical analysis and that is one tool. How that is connected to any decision that "defense doesn't matter" is beyond me.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't think Beane is different than any GM in the league in this regard. I've never read anything to say he has exceeded normal involvement - where are you getting this from (besides second hand accounts). He does (as any GM does) want his manager to use the players he has instead of the players he doesn't have and that is a good idea.

WTF? Did you even read Moneyball?! It makes it quite clear that Beane is far more meddling than any other GM in the game and that is one of the first things a new player notices, that instead of the manager calling the shots, it's the GM. It isn't justing using the players he wants, but setting lineups, to the point where Art Howe was almost a figurehead manager.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

WTF? Did you even read Moneyball?! It makes it quite clear that Beane is far more meddling than any other GM in the game and that is one of the first things a new player notices, that instead of the manager calling the shots, it's the GM. It isn't justing using the players he wants, but setting lineups, to the point where Art Howe was almost a figurehead manager.

My belief isn't that Beane doesn't meddle - I believe Moneyball on that point. My belief is that most GM's meddle to the degree that they want their managers to use the players they have for the skills they have - on that point I think Moneyball is just asserting without authority (Lewis didn't really do the legwork with other GM's). I'm not opposed to the idea that Beane is more meddling - I just think the degree to which it is assumed he meddles is exaggerated for effect. Howe was kind of a pain in the ass to Beane because he didn't really "buy" into all of the statistical analysis stuff, so the degree to which Beane meddled was higher. Is there anything showing he has continued to meddle as much with Macha as manager? GM's are said to "meddle" when they disagree with their manager and that happens quite a lot.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Agreed that I grouped two different concepts together in a confusing way.

McCracken discovered the statistic, but I think he is given way too much credit for his "breakthrough" research. That's just a personal opinion. I don't have the statistics at my disposal to back up that opinion, but if I ever win the lottery and have a couple of weeks to put together the numbers I'll explain why.

I agree that if you REALLY understand DIPS then you understand the importance of defense and range. But like I said, I think people think DIPS means defense doesn't matter because Beane and some others have valued a player's OBP over defense.

Truthfully, this makes no sense to me. Anyone who attempts to understand DIPS at any level will understand that defense is more valuable than previously thought- there is simply no real way to look at DIPS and conclude that it understates defense - a neophyte to DIPS recognizes that "Defense" is the first word in the acronym.