or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Moneyball- I hate this book
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Moneyball- I hate this book - Page 2

post #16 of 30
Moneyball focuses on sabermetrics, which are certain "new" stats. The most common ones are slugging percentage, on base percentage, and OPS (On base + slugging percentage) Moneyball eschews steals and bunts, becuase these are typically negative run producing activites. Take a look at the Oakland team, they have almost no steals. For some reason, it seems the Moneyball game focuses on left handed pitching, I'm not sure why that is. Generally, get the most OBP, SP, and OPS for your money.
post #17 of 30
I agree it's unlikely that the Braves get in the Beltran sweepstakes with Boras involved, I just think AJ strikes out too much and hits for too poor of an average for what he is getting paid, fielding nonwithstanding. I do feel that the biggest drawback of Moneyball is that it doesn't take fielding into account. Just look at the change in the Red Sox after they traded Nomar for defense...
post #18 of 30
Quote:
Moneyball focuses on sabermetrics, which are certain "new" stats.  The most common ones are slugging percentage, on base percentage, and OPS (On base + slugging percentage)   Moneyball eschews steals and bunts, becuase these are typically negative run producing activites.  Take a look at the Oakland team, they have almost no steals.   For some reason, it seems the Moneyball game focuses on left handed pitching, I'm not sure why that is.   Generally, get the most OBP, SP, and OPS for your money.
Okay, this description sounds like a fancy way of saying "American League style ball."  I'm not sure it will work in the NL.  As long as the pitcher has to hit, steals and bunts will be part of the game.
post #19 of 30
Well I think you more or less ignore the pitcher's hitting abilities when recruiting them, the stats are used to evaluate the abilities of position players. The core concept of Moneyball is bang for the buck, analysis through statistics rather than through physical skill/attributes, and getting the best possible player statistically for the money.
post #20 of 30
Quote:
I agree it's unlikely that the Braves get in the Beltran sweepstakes with Boras involved, I just think AJ strikes out too much and hits for too poor of an average for what he is getting paid, fielding nonwithstanding.  
That's nothing a good swing coach can't fix.  On the other hand, you can't teach someone to be a good fielder; they have it or they don't.  Like a good cornerback in football, a good centerfielder has spillover effects to the rest of the defense.  Andruw Jones in CF allows the Braves to get away with playing below-average fielders in LF and RF.
post #21 of 30
Your post died again. I don't think JD Drew was an average right fielder, he was a damn good fielder IMO.
post #22 of 30
Thread Starter 
I think the trade helps the Yankees and the DiamondBacks, but I don't see it really helping the Dodgers at all. The only reason the Dodgers make the trade would be to free up money by dumping Shawn Green and his 16M to sign Adrian Beltre, who's already abandonded his team to sign for Seattle. I don't think the Dodgers are going to use this money to go after any high profile agents, most of whom have already been signed. Instead, they signed Valentin to replace Beltre at 3rd. Basically, the Dodgers traded away the best set up man, Mota, and the heart and soul of the team, La Duca, for Penny whom they said was going to be their ace. And, now you trade Green, Brazoban, and Penny for Vasquez who ended up with a 4.91 ERA last year and 2 prospects. Even if these 2 guys are the Yankees' best minor league prospects, they're in class A and AA. You don't know how good they really will be, and all the best Yankee prospects have already been traded away. And, this just leaves too many holes for the Dodgers to fill. Now, you have find somebody to replace Brazoban, who actually did an amazing job replacing Mota, and somebody to replace Green and Beltre's numbers in the lineup. I knew the Dodgers were going to try to cap their payroll salary at a much lower level when they signed Depodesta.
post #23 of 30
Thread Starter 
I don't understand why Seattle is spending so much money on Sexton and Beltre this year when they should have spent that money in 01 or 02 to win a world series. Now, its too late and they still won't be able to win their division since they did nothing to improve their pitching.
post #24 of 30
The best bang for the buck has been the Twins. Hell even the players the Twins dint resign became great bargains for other teams *cough BoSox. Nothing like making the post-season with a team salary at the time that was lower than A-Rods.
post #25 of 30
Seattle's team is pretty old, but I don't think their pitching is all that bad. Their rotation will have Moyer, Franklin, Piniero, Meche, and the rookie, Madrisch and I don't think that's too bad. In the bullpen they have Guardado, Hasegawa and Rafael Soriano who is pretty badass. The twins have done a good job but they are not playing Moneyball by any means, they aren't focusing on run creation, but speed and defense which has no place in the system. They just don't have alot of money, and haven't won a world series since 1987.
post #26 of 30
My big passion is baseball; if the (@.#*&% Sox hadn't won the Series I'd be spending all my time at the Baseball Think Factory.  Instead, I haven't been able to stomach a single word of baseball writing since Halloween.   Drizzt hit the nail on the head re: Moneyball.  It explains the A's ability to identify and exploit a weakness in the market.  They stepped back completely and analyzed what winning teams had in common that could be put down on paper.  Turned out that OBP and some more esoteric stats were better indicators of run scoring ability than the big money stats like RBI.  Their payroll didn't allow for the purchase of the 'best' players, so instead the focused on good OBP guys who would add runs to the team at the lowest marginal cost.  The keys to the A's winning nature not discussed in the book were an incredible minor league coaching chain; and their pitching coach, Rich Peterson. For a medium-payroll team, the ideal spending structure would be one or two big stars (the younger the better; if they're older than 30 then they'd better be Barry Bonds) with a strong but not over-paid supporting cast.  For example, get a second baseman who is terrible at stealing bases, which is a traditional 2B strength and is therefore overpaid, but will hit a bunch of homeruns and be seen as an oddity.  Great example of that would be Jeff Kent, who has an argument to be one of the top 5 2B ever. The more common example is promoting a player from AAA and paying him the league minimum instead of paying an old guy with the exact same skills 3-4M per year. The Red Sox are a Moneyball team because they use sabermetric stats and because they extract the greatest value from their payroll.  For example, they don't go out and sign the extremely over-rated Tony Womack to do the job for which he is least suited:  leading off.  They got Ortiz for a song from Minnesota because they Twinkies had an overabundance of good young hitters, and every time chose from among those hitters based on athleticism rather than actual ability to hit the crap out of the ball. Re: pitching and defense, the book didn't reference them much, but I wonder if Beene only gave Michael Lewis the access he did in exchange for not giving away all the secrets?  OBP acolytes were already instilled in NY, Boston, Cleveland, Florida, KC, and a few others.  The movement was picking up steam, Oakland couldn't keep that edge forever.  They do, however, still have proprietary pitching and defense rating systems that allow them to turn big profits on the like of Koch, Dotel, and Foulke every year. Tom
post #27 of 30
Oh, and the Unit-to-NYY trade. Hate it. There are two worthwhile prospects in the system; giving them to DePo in LA is not the way to ensure success beyond tomorrow. My beloved Yanks have to get back on the track Stick Michael had them on in the early '90s (while George was suspended) of drafting and promoting from within. I promise that any non-NYY fans would not even recognize the name of the one free agent who was on the team when they won in '96. Everyone else was drafted or acquired in a trade. Mussina was the first big name they signed away from another team, and that wasn't until '99 or 2000. Tom
post #28 of 30
Shoot, one more and then I promise I'm done. Vazquez would pitch well in LA. Hell, *I* would pitch well in Chavez Ravine. Since the day it's opened it's been the hardest park to hit in in the league. Fewer HR, fewer 2B, fewer BB, more K, you name it. Has any Dodger hit 40HR since Gibson? That's not just for the Dodgers, park effects are figured by looking how visiting teams played there compared to everywhere else, normalizing for team quality, then averaged over three years. Dodger Stadium is almost as bad for scoring as Mile High is for pitching. Tom
post #29 of 30
Thread Starter 
The reason Dodger Stadium used to be such a pitchers park was due to all the foul ground where the defense could make an out. However, McBankrupt has filled in that space with extra seating to help pay off his loan from FOX to buy the Dodgers from FOX. Do any BoSox fans have any comments about Derek Lowe, and what I should expect. My first impression is that the Dodgers overpaid for him, and I don't think he'll do a good job at all. I know Moneyball doesn't rank defense as a major factor, but Dlowe is a groundball pitcher and the Dodgers have regressed signifigantly in defense in the infield since the postseason.
post #30 of 30
I think Lowe has great stuff, he is a groundball pitcher, which is good for Dodger Stadium, as the winds will typically knock down fly balls pretty well. The Dodgers may have overpaid, but what choice did they have? Their rotation looks good with Perez, Penny, and Lowe.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Moneyball- I hate this book