Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 19, 2008
Variations on a Theme

Yard Work takes down Murray Chass.


Posted by David Pinto at 11:16 AM | Humor | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Moneyball ? How many titles did the A's win by following this method? Did they outperform and save money or maximize their investment - maybe, but they couldn't get into the World Series. Who wants to root for a team that maximizes output - when the output leaves them watching other teams play in mid-October?

Economic and data driven decisions are great, but at some point winning it all (and valuing winning in a non-economic way) must be added to the equation as some sort of goodwill accounting.

Chass is simply reporting a fact - that some scouts and team management reject the application of Beane-ball.

Posted by: rmt at February 19, 2008 11:37 AM

Why all the hatred towards the A's? I've never really understood that. The first comment basically says they suck, yet I think they've been very successful considering their payroll. Considering that they have spent probably 40% of what the Yankees have spent in the past five years, I'd say they've exceeded expectations (yet people defend Brian Cashman and slam Billy Beane?)

As far as the Jeremy Brown thing goes, try taking a look at those drafted around him, none of them made it either! Most picks in the draft aren't any good, you would think Murray Chass would realize that.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/draft/2002/Round-1-1.shtml

Posted by: Tom at February 19, 2008 01:07 PM

Tom - the Yankees overpay for talent because they cannot afford to lose. The A's try to pay "exact value" or underpay because there is no pressure to produce.

Moneyball is economic common sense - but would you rather have your team pay solely economic value and practice green eyeshade common sense or get a player at the deadline that could help them win a series?

Posted by: rmt at February 19, 2008 02:22 PM

rmt, I think the whole point is that the A's CAN'T afford a big name player that can "help them win a series." If you only have enough money to either fill a team with a bunch crappy players that nobody wants and one superstarare are you really in any better shape to "win a series?"

As it stands, up until last season, the only team that has won more games than the A's are the Yankees. I don't really understand how people can continue to bash their philosophy. Especially since the playoffs themselves are basically a crapshoot when it comes to predicting who will win.

Posted by: the d at February 19, 2008 04:11 PM

even without opening their wallets, the A's had three prime starters, men that got on base, and a 2-0 lead on the Yankees in the playoffs. Having 3 prime starters should not make the playoffs a crapshoot, unless you play like crap in the playoffs.

Posted by: rmt at February 19, 2008 04:18 PM

It's ALWAYS a crapshoot. Every year. Look what happened in 2006. Did anyone really expect the Tigers to fall apart? How many people predicted an 83-win team would take it all?

Getting to the playoffs is the hard part. After that, you just have to hope that the team can continue to play at their highest level. No amount of money can guarantee that will happen.

Posted by: the d at February 19, 2008 04:24 PM

Tell the Yankees from 1996 to 2000 that it is a crapshoot.

Something that cannot be measured by moneyball and sabremertics - team cohesiveness and performance under pressure - wins playoffs. If you have character on the team (Red Sox conmeback in 2007), you can win.

it is the reason the mets went to hell last year, and the phils and rockies came through strongly.

Posted by: rmt at February 19, 2008 04:48 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?