- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Many Problems With 'Moneyball'
Posted on 9/28/11 at 4:15 pm to Poodlebrain
Posted on 9/28/11 at 4:15 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
Beane was operating at a disadvantage in the market for baseball players. He simply could not afford to pay for the players that were highly desired by his competitors. He found a way to be competitive by identifying a better metric for what wins baseball games for a team over the course of a season, and then applying that metric for determining the value of players to make up the team given the financial constraints he had to operate under. Beane was successful in meeting his objectives. Those who claim he failed are using a different standard, probably one that they think his objective should have been.
Doesn't that go against the facts cited that the "small market" Oakland A's had massive success in the 25 years leading up to the 2002 season without Beane? (much better than the Yankees)
1
Posted on 9/28/11 at 4:25 pm to Tiger JJ
Well, considering Barra included the A's success prior to free agency, that was misleading. Once free agency began, Chuck Finley, quite literally, sold off his players.
The A's were terrible in the 1990s once the economics of the game changed. Barra's right and wrong about competitive balance, which did steadily increase up until the 1980s and have since regressed back to 1960s-70s levels.
Also, and I can't say this enough times, drafting soft-tossing college pitchers IS a sabermetric principle which defied traditional wisdom, so Beane deserves credit for drafting those guys in 1998.
The A's were terrible in the 1990s once the economics of the game changed. Barra's right and wrong about competitive balance, which did steadily increase up until the 1980s and have since regressed back to 1960s-70s levels.
Also, and I can't say this enough times, drafting soft-tossing college pitchers IS a sabermetric principle which defied traditional wisdom, so Beane deserves credit for drafting those guys in 1998.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 4:36 pm to Baloo
What's the explanation for the Phillies long run at terribleness?
Posted on 9/28/11 at 4:40 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
What's the explanation for the Phillies long run at terribleness?
Really, really bad front office decisions for a very long time. hey didn't build a farm system for a decades, putting them well behind the NL. They were reluctant to hire black players, which absolutely killed them in the 50s and 60s.
They probably hired their first competent GM in 2005 or so, when they hired Gillick. You can have money, but stupid decisions beat money.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 4:47 pm to Poodlebrain
The A's were small market, and couldn't pay for free agents like others. But the true success and adaptations of the moneyball philosophy came in the draft. That seems to be overlooked in this thread.
Yes, they had good players, which in turn helped them win. But they found the majority in the draft, using this philosophy. (of course tejada and giambi juicing didnt hurt). It was much more than just moving Scott Hatteberg to 1B.
Yes, they had good players, which in turn helped them win. But they found the majority in the draft, using this philosophy. (of course tejada and giambi juicing didnt hurt). It was much more than just moving Scott Hatteberg to 1B.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News