Setting Things Straight: The Truth About the Billy Beane Era

[5dwright5]

A lot has been made of the Oakland Athletics during the past decade or so. You've got Michael Lewis' Moneyball. You've got the sabermetrics. You've got the trades, or the so-called "recycling" of the major league roster.

Contrary to popular belief, however, the A's are just another baseball team.

There are several misconceptions about the A's and what they do, mostly brought on by Moneyball. It's to the point where I feel even A's fans have no idea what's going on. Too many things are blown out of proportion, and if people would just take the time to listen, they'd realize that there's no elaborate plan, and that there's no constant recycling of the roster.

That's what I'm here to do. I'm here to set the record straight on the 1998-2009 Oakland Athletics.

Moneyball - What is it?: The ignorance of certain writers and fans around the baseball world is, unfortunately, greatly expressed whenever they speak about Moneyball. Several people, including the A's own fans and writers assume it to be about how sabermetrics are the greatest things since sliced bread, and that traditional stats are useless. Most, obviously, have never read the book. It's not about stats or sabermetrics. It's not about Billy Beane's ego.

Moneyball is a book about the trials that a small market team goes through to develop a winner. It's about finding a cost-effective way to build an effective baseball team. The way you go about doing that is using undervalued resources to find the undervalued player, and maximizing that player's ability. In this case, those resources were statistics like on-base percentage, and different defensive metrics. They were used to predict the probability of a team being able to win however many games, or score however many runs to be successful. And it worked. They were able to pick up other team's castoffs in Scott Hatteberg, Terrence Long, Chad Bradford, Jeremy Giambi, Matt Stairs, and others, and turn this group of fat, slow, unexciting, unathletic players into a winner.

Using these methods, the A's were able to win at least 87 games every year from 1999-2006.

Now, how does this relate to my original point of how it's not some elaborate plan or complicated scheme that goes on just in Oakland? It's simple. Every team does it. Every team employs statisticians. The Boston Red Sox, owners of two World Series titles this decade, put even more emphasis on statistics than the A's do. Bill James, often called the "Father of Sabermetrics", works for the Red Sox as a consultant. Especially in this market, teams have a responsibility to use whatever resources they can to field a major league team.

Moneyball is dead - Is it?: Many people like to argue that Moneyball doesn't work anymore due to the recent play of the Athletics, the firing of JP Ricciardi, and for other reasons of that nature. They say that Moneyball is clearly dead because of these developments. But is it?

It depends on how you look at it. As I said, Moneyball was about using resources to find the undervalued player. I also said that more teams have employed statisticians and sabermatricians to help develop talent. I don't think Moneyball is dead, I think that it's now a league-wide practice which makes finding the undervalued player tougher. The reason we don't see any Scott Hattebergs or Jeremy Giambis is because teams aren't just giving those players away anymore. People realize the value in players that aren't "toolsy". They realize the value of on-base percentage. They realize the value of defense. Building a winner through Moneyball is tougher because Moneyball is no secret anymore. Everybody uses it, so nobody's at an advantage like the A's of the early 2,000's were.

Several players from those teams were acquired from other teams. While Billy Beane does still find the occasional Jack Hannahan, and while Jack Zduriencik can still find a Franklin Gutierrez, those players aren't available everywhere, which has made the draft more important these days.

And that is where Billy Beane has learned from his ways of the early part of the decade. He used to shun almost all high school players, but is now open to drafting them if they're talented enough. The draft is still a bit of a crapshoot, however, so building a successful club is doubly tough these days.

So is Moneyball dead? This humble observer says absolutely not. In actuality, it's the exact opposite.



To see the rest of the article, go here: http://baseballhaven.net/showthread.php?t=1036

This was an article written by herro on Baseball Haven (baseball forum)

Wanted to share that with you guys (great forum by the way)

[5dwright5]

surprised nobody had any thoughts or replies on this

[steelcurtain311]

It's an interesting read, but nothing I haven't already read. Moneyball shouldn't even exist, there shouldn't of been any need for it in any professional sport. The playing field should just be even.

I'm in the group that believes the whole moneyball thing in Oakland was a crock. What was the secret to their success? The same secret to everyone's success, pitching.

A low market team like Washington brings in an OBP/OPS demon in Adam Dunn, yet they're still the worst team in the MLB. Why? Because they have no pitching. The key to winning is the same as it's ever been, great pitching and building off of that.

[TheLetterZ]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelcurtain311

A low market team like Washington brings in an OBP/OPS demon in Adam Dunn, yet they're still the worst team in the MLB. Why? Because they have no pitching. The key to winning is the same as it's ever been, great pitching and building off of that.

Their hitting stinks too. Dunn and Zimmerman are good, but the rest of their lineup is awful. You need more than two good hitters.

[Dice]

The Moneyball Theory was the most overrated hype in the history of baseball. Any team can do wonders if they had 3 ace starters in their rotation.

[CMH]

Moneyball is overhyped if people want to believe it's about OBP. As important a statistic it is, the infatuation with it goes beyond its relevance in baseball.

Moneyball is about fielding a comptitive team with limited resources. The fact that the A's were able to maintain a high level of performance even after trading Hudson and Mulder proves that they had a great understanding of applying te theory.

Beane flipped two of those aces for pitchers that were cost-effective and complimented Barry Zito. That was the madness behind his system. It worked but it can't work forever when richer teams are applying the same theory and scooping up the effective cost-effective players.

[CMH]

It's also important to realize that Beane is still using the theory today, albeit differently.

He acquired Matt Holliday with the hope of flipping him for better minor leaguers than he traded away. He banked on the belief that players in a contract year perform better and attract a greater bidding war. However, Holliday didn't perform well and sunk him.

He tried similar with Giambi. I'm sure if Giambi had hit well, Beane could have traded him to a cntender for a solid minor leaguer (ala Jim Thome from Chicago to LA). But again, Giambi stunk and Beane had no choice but to release him.

Now Beane is focused on using his young players exclusively. Probably in hopes to catch late 90's magic again and not repeat the mistake he made when he let Tejada and Zito walk.

[Sportsforever]

I disagree that moneyball is just about metrics, fielding a team with limited resources, etc. To me, it was a culture shift from scouts/baseball men ruling the game to guys with like Theo Epstein making the decisions on player personnel.