"You see, the ability to get on base strike out batters or catch fly balls in the gap doesn't matter if you don't have chemistry."

'course, chemistry is often the result of getting on base and striking out batters and catching fly balls; if you can do those things better than everyone else, you win. And nothing produces team chemistry better than winning. Any team with three months (May-July for the Dodgers) of .390-ball is sure to see some tempers flare!

Best as I can tell, Kent & Drew were sharp signings. Kent had the 2nd highest OPS+ (136) in baseball for a 2B (Roberts was #1). And 148 OPS+ (Drew) is excellent no matter what position you play.

Was DePodesta the guy who decided to lead off Izturis?

These geek GMs are too young (Rangers: what is Tom Hicks thinking?) Someone needs to grasp that Beane actually knows what he's doing within the context of his envirnement - few others can do the same.

Remember, though, that the Dodgers were terrible this year. If DePo was such a genius--- and had more money to play with than Beane ever did--- why was his team so lousy? You're probably right in that Lasorda and company saw things in terms of DePo ignoring "chemistry," and that this wasn't really the problem. But I disagree here with the feeling that DePo was some kind of misunderstood genius just because he was Beane's protege and didn't do things conventionally. Maybe he was using the right tool, but he was just lousy at it. Perhaps Epstein and DePodesta were cut from the same cloth only insofar as they both played the Moneyball game--- but Epstein was great at it while DePodesta's a loser.

Kent was a terrible signing for the obvious reason that he can't field his position. DePodesta can't rightly be criticized for signing a sinker baller like Lowe and an immobile second baseman the same year.

Uh, that "can't" should be a "can", obviously. (Next time I'll preview before posting....)

"Kent was a terrible signing for the obvious reason that he can't field his position."

Would you rather have Spivey, Soriano, Durham, Walker, Infante, Giles, Matsui, Gonzalez, Biggio, Vidro, Miles, Gotay, Green, Castillo, Cantu, Boone, or Weeks? (all of whom played 500+ INN @ 2B and posted a lower 2005 ZR)

He was no Alex Cora, but I was actually pretty surprised by how well Kent did field his position. Of course, what dropoff there was in defense at the position was mroe than compensated with Jeff's bat. Hee-Seop Choi, Olmedo Saenz, Jason Phillips, and Jose Valentin all were serious defensive liabilities, though.

So much for Sabermetrics. Shurholtz didn't think JD Drew was worth $55 million over 5 years. And Derek Lowe at $9 mil a year? Come on. Brad Penny, Odalis Perez.... The guy did a lousy job. That's all there is to it.

Oh, please. DePodesta had *one* mediocre off-season. Drew hit well before getting hurt and should be solid for the next few years, Kent was good, and Derek Lowe, while not worth the money in any pure sense, was better than people thought he would be.

The Lowe and Perez signings can't be looked at in a vacuum. DePodesta hadn't had a chance to put together the minor league depth that he was on his way toward, and the team demanded that they be competitive. AAAA pitchers like the A's had in 1997 and 1998 weren't going to cut it.

For everyone who thinks Beane is great and DePo sucks, go back and look at the A's records in '97 and '98.

Meanwhile, I'm not convinced that Beane doesn't value chemistry pretty highly. Remember the crazy Jeremy Giambi trade? He's been quick to pull the trigger on other guys who aren't really acting right as well, and the A's are famous for having a very loose clubhouse. I'm not saying it does matter, but I don't know if Beane is completely a skeptic, either.

Yeah, I think McCourt pulled the trigger finger too early, but seriously, this was not a good team no matter how you sliced it, and that's the kind of thing people get fired for.