Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 272

Thread: Shanks Follows Up On His Heyward Article

  1. #41
    Hessmania Forever
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    13,994
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,887
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7,678
    Thanked in
    4,941 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by gilesfan View Post
    But this assumes pitchers can throw strikes when they want to. Look at some of the walk leaders. Duda, Uggla, Carlos Pena, \

    Heck there are a couple pitchers with walk rates over 10% (Pettibone, Lynn)
    I guess I was thinking more of the Moneyball draft and all that huzzah. My guess is the difference with the guys you point is that first and foremost, they are in the big leagues and can hit big league fastballs. You don't get to the bigs without that ability. Second, they can't do much of anything with borderline pitches, so they don't swing at them. Sometimes those pitches are balls and sometimes they are strikes (which adds to both the walk and strikeout totals for those players). Plus, a mistake to those guys usually ends up in the stands. It's all risk/reward when you're pitching, but you are right in contending that guys still have to throw quality strikes.

  2. #42
    Hessmania Forever
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    13,994
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,887
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7,678
    Thanked in
    4,941 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphysicist View Post
    True, Moneyball was a very simplistic book in retrospect (and at the time, if you knew what you were looking for), and Lewis dialed a number of the aspects up to 11 to make to story seem better (and the movie, while entertaining, dialed them up to 15). But I think this description misses a fundamental goal of that draft for the A's: they needed to save money. It wasn't just about being the best (though obviously that was a big goal, especially in the story as Lewis framed it), but about finding a way to draft guys that wasn't as expensive. So I think getting average results while cheaping out on some guys has to be credited as a success, even if it didn't turn the world upside down.
    I guess that's my primary beef. This really wasn't the next big thing. In fact, the approach of skills over tools was something the Minnesota Twins did with some success in the 1980s and early 1990s. I still think that the A's were all about truncated development arcs more than anything else. Guys had to be cheap and they had to get to the big leagues in a hurry. I don't care if you are buying a baseball player or a horse, the folks that gamble on pedigree usually end up winning and the A's did not have that advantage.

  3. #43
    Approaching Buddy Hernandez Territory ChapelHillMatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    337
    Thanked in
    187 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    His thing with Heyward gets under my skin, though. Jason is a better player than most of the guys that Bill jocked unmercifully, but beyond that, he seems to be underappreciated for doing all of the things that traditionalists like Bill supposedly love: he works hard off the field, sells out on every play, plays smart, and says all the right things. People still pat Francoeur on the back for this stuff—"Hey, he stinks, but he plays hard and is a nice guy."

    Other guys who demonstrate these qualities? They play the game the right way. They have a high baseball IQ. Jason does it night in and night out . . . crickets.
    Exactly

  4. #44
    Called Up to the Major Leagues
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    932
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    300 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Just like Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine made JS look a lot smarter than he really was.
    Poor analogy.

    Entering the 1991 season, the Braves were picked by ALL the previews to once again finish last. Personnel-wise, would was different? FA signings of Terry Pendleton (MVP), Sid Bream and Rafael Belliard. Jimmy Kremers landed Otis Nixon. Defense was improved exponentially. The IF surface was given a makeover. Expectation of professionalism and attention to detail was spread throughout the organization, even to concessions. These objectives were all the work of JS. As for Maddux, he was obviously still a Cub then. Certainly, JS deserves a fair amount of credit for the greatest FA signing in history, particularly when the Yankees offered more money.

    His mark is still on the organization with his handpicked successor as GM. Despite some questionable moves and a few down seasons over the past few years, it's still pretty amazing that the team never had to go through a full scale rebuild. Oh, and head to head with genius statman hero, Billy Beane. Schuerholz didn't do too badly in getting Hudson for Dan Meyer, Charles Thomas & Juan Cruz.

  5. #45
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Knucksie View Post
    Poor analogy.

    Entering the 1991 season, the Braves were picked by ALL the previews to once again finish last. Personnel-wise, would was different? FA signings of Terry Pendleton (MVP), Sid Bream and Rafael Belliard. Jimmy Kremers landed Otis Nixon. Defense was improved exponentially. The IF surface was given a makeover. Expectation of professionalism and attention to detail was spread throughout the organization, even to concessions. These objectives were all the work of JS. As for Maddux, he was obviously still a Cub then. Certainly, JS deserves a fair amount of credit for the greatest FA signing in history, particularly when the Yankees offered more money.

    His mark is still on the organization with his handpicked successor as GM. Despite some questionable moves and a few down seasons over the past few years, it's still pretty amazing that the team never had to go through a full scale rebuild. Oh, and head to head with genius statman hero, Billy Beane. Schuerholz didn't do too badly in getting Hudson for Dan Meyer, Charles Thomas & Juan Cruz.
    I dunno. I think JS came along and benefited from all the great talent that Bobby Cox stockpiled. Some of his trades and signings were very good-Pendleton, Maddux, McGriff, Hudson, Sheffield. But he gave up Jason Schmidt who went on to have some dominant seasons. The fiasco involving the Millwood for Estrada trade was due to a big miscalculation on his part. He also traded away some pretty good young players for questionable returns, including Dye, Wainwright, Feliz, Andrus, Harrison, Saltalamacchia. One of his worst trades was LaRoche (a solid young power hitting first baseman) for Mike Gonzalez. A smart GM does not trade a solid young regular for a middle-of-the-road closer. That trade betrays a misunderstanding of the importance of a closer. Strangely enough he made a better trade that off-season to bring in another closer-Soriano for Horacio Ramirez.

    On the whole I'd rate JS slightly above average. I rate the two guys who preceded him and succeeded him (Cox and Wren) much higher as GMs.
    Last edited by nsacpi; 07-09-2013 at 11:48 AM.

  6. #46
    Called Up to the Major Leagues
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    932
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    300 Posts
    Jason Schmidt didn't get great until after he left Pittsburgh. Neagle was extremely useful (and arguably) necessary. Avery's effectiveness was dwindling down, and the decision was made to maintain the RH/LH/RH/LH dynamic of the rotation, albeit with all starters who could be staff aces on most other teams. In fact, after Neagle was acquired, Schuerholtz received calls from other GM's trying to get him. JS will be the first to admit his biggest trade disaster. (No, it wasn't Texeira...and that's been beated to death enough at The Other Place.) All discussion begins and ends with David Cone.

    Bobby made much bigger blunders as GM. This period of time was recounted in detail by me in a thread at the temporary forum, we just vacated. His saving grace was not trading the young pitching. The Red Sox offered Greenwell for Glavine. A number of inquiries were made about Avery were wisely rebuffed. Really, though, did it take a genius to hold onto those pitchers? It's all they had in the late 80's. Fact is, they could've been competitive sooner. Think of Bob Horner to Japan. Think of declining to sign Dawson/Raines package deal. Think of mishandling asset of Dale Murphy with offers from Padres and Mets that would've helped with roster players for years.

    The list of GM's who've won WS championships in both leagues can't be that lengthy. Further, nobody can really fault a GM for occasionally swinging for the fence with some trades, in hopes of coming out a winner in the current playoff crap shoot. (Were the last 2 Cardinals teams really that loaded with talent?) JS understood this fact. He didn't sit around on a message board, contemplating how how much Andrelton Simmons will cost in 5 years or having a man-crush with every prospect in the system.
    Last edited by Knucksie; 07-09-2013 at 12:10 PM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Knucksie For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (07-09-2013)

  8. #47
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,440
    Thanked in
    3,829 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    And the idea that there is some sort of war between statheads and traditional scouting is a red herring/strawman/whatever you want to call it.
    I'd prefer to call it a false dichotomy, personally.

  9. #48
    Not Actually Brian Hunter Metaphysicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,641
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,547
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,645
    Thanked in
    878 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    On the whole I'd rate JS slightly above average. I rate the two guys who preceded him and succeeded him (Cox and Wren) much higher as GMs.
    That seems like a pretty big overcorrection. Cox (or maybe Paul Snyder should get the credit here) definitely did a great job priming the pump for the early 90s (though he was not so great at the MLB aspects), but JS presided over a decade and a half of excellence. I can't see how you call him anything other than a top of the line GM. He didn't win every trade, but until the Teixeira one none of them were truly awful. His successes definitely outweigh the failures by a long shot.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Metaphysicist For This Useful Post:

    CK86 (07-24-2013), CyYoung31 (07-09-2013), Knucksie (07-09-2013)

  11. #49
    Called Up to the Major Leagues
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    932
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    300 Posts
    One thing that needs to be added about this side discussion (sorry to steer the thread OT), but look at the young pitching, who were part of that wave.

    Tom Glavine was drafted while Cox was managing in Toronto.
    Tommy Greene was traded by Cox with Dale Murphy to Philly. This came back to haunt the Braves, esp. in '93
    Pete Smith was acquired with Ozzie Virgil for Steve Bedrosian. This would've been the work of John Mullen.
    (Notice the last 2. That should've been an indication to pause before making trades with the Phillies.)

    So, what names does that leave? Smoltz trade (excellent asset management of Doyle Alexander). Drafting of Avery, Lilliquist and Mercker.

    Ahh, we mustn't forget that Bobby traded away Zane Smith, who had effective years. What was the return? Nothing useful.

    http://www.baseball-almanac.com/play...hp?p=smithza01

    (Look at what the Expos got from the Pirates for him though!)
    Last edited by Knucksie; 07-09-2013 at 12:45 PM.

  12. #50
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,440
    Thanked in
    3,829 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 50PoundHead View Post
    I don't know how much of the hubris in "Moneyball" is Beane and how much is Lewis (I have always contended more can be laid at the feet of Lewis who, while extremely intelligent has a contrarian streak a mile wide), but all glowing write-ups of unathletic guys who were going to succeed because they recognized the difference between a ball and a strike turned out to be fairly hollow. And if you look at the A's now, they barely resemble the group that Beane assembled in the late-1990s. Of course, Beane's ardent faithful will contend it's all about "market inefficiencies" and not about on-base percentage, but again, for those who contend that, read the book again.
    I think Moneyball was ultimately so reductive exactly because Lewis felt the need to position his text, and the organization and trend it detailed, as so counter-institutional. I also think positing an oh-so-shockingly counter-conventional subject/narrative is a frequently-observable phenomenon when journalists decide to write lengthy non-fiction.
    Last edited by jpx7; 07-09-2013 at 12:54 PM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    50PoundHead (07-12-2013)

  14. #51
    Atlanta Braves Fan
    Wash Nationals Fan
    Bryce Harper Fanatic

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,459
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    87
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,317
    Thanked in
    874 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    I think Moneyball was ultimately so reductive exactly because Lewis felt the need to position his text, and the organization and trend it detailed, as so counter-institutional. I also think positing an oh-so-shockingly counter-conventional subject/narrative is a frequently-observable phenomenon when journalists decide to write lengthy non-fiction.

    In english?

  15. #52
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,440
    Thanked in
    3,829 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by gilesfan View Post
    In english?
    Edit: Screw it: let's just say it doesn't translate.
    Last edited by jpx7; 07-09-2013 at 12:59 PM. Reason: Dissatisfaction with censor of swear-words.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    Gary82 (07-09-2013), Julio3000 (07-09-2013), Metaphysicist (07-09-2013)

  17. #53
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,567
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphysicist View Post
    That seems like a pretty big overcorrection. Cox (or maybe Paul Snyder should get the credit here) definitely did a great job priming the pump for the early 90s (though he was not so great at the MLB aspects), but JS presided over a decade and a half of excellence. I can't see how you call him anything other than a top of the line GM. He didn't win every trade, but until the Teixeira one none of them were truly awful. His successes definitely outweigh the failures by a long shot.
    The JD Drew trade was even worse IMO.

  18. #54
    Called Up to the Major Leagues
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    932
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    300 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphysicist View Post
    That seems like a pretty big overcorrection. Cox (or maybe Paul Snyder should get the credit here) definitely did a great job priming the pump for the early 90s (though he was not so great at the MLB aspects), but JS presided over a decade and a half of excellence. I can't see how you call him anything other than a top of the line GM. He didn't win every trade, but until the Teixeira one none of them were truly awful. His successes definitely outweigh the failures by a long shot.
    Schuerholz made the Texeira trade because he salivated at the prospect of having 2 hit for power/hit for average switch hitters at 3-4 in the lineup. He knew that Chipper was going to see A LOT more strikes than he ever saw before. That was the motivating factor. The system had other pitching and a SS, at the time, which allowed for it to happen. Do over? Yeah, highly doubtful JS would've done it with the benefit of hindsight.

    Still, JS's worst trade was the David Cone deal. For the Braves, it was the Len Barker deal that caused far more lasting damage to the organization.

  19. #55
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    24,620
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,428
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,432
    Thanked in
    2,463 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 50PoundHead View Post
    zito, I get what you are saying, but I've always thought the market inefficiency stuff is a bunch of bunk used by Lewis to justify this new approach that devalued tools over skills. I would only say that Beane and DePodesta valued on-base skills more than other franchises "at the margins," but Lewis makes it sound like those two invented the concept. Voros McCracken and others have tried to claim that on-base skills are a "tool" when they are more a "skill." I don't buy that. If a guy can't hit the ball, he's not going to get the opportunity to walk because pitchers are going to throw him nothing but strikes. In other words, it all fits together.

    Other than that, I always thought Beane's approach had to do more with "time" than anything else. A small market team can't afford to wait for guys to develop and then become too expensive when their arbitration years hit. Beane wanted guys who were more "ready made" to contribute when they hit the bigs to get production more immediately and then trade that production for packages of younger players.

    And I don't know about McCann. He's probably had a perfect swing since he was five years old and there's no question the kid played at a high level in the heralded Atlanta-area summer leagues. Scouts knew all about him. He may look like a lump, but he's a lump with great hitting mechanics.

    As for Lipka versus Minor, one is/was pretty much a finished product and everyone and their mother in the Braves system knew that Lipka was a football player who was going to have to learn how to play baseball. It all depends on where you are as a franchise and how much time and budget you can throw into a guy. You can take high-ceiling guys who may develop more slowly if you can afford to sign them and have the time to watch them develop. I'm not going to single out Lipka, but with the Braves taking a far different approach to the draft in the Liberty ownership era, the need to go out and over-pay for B.J. Upton was readily apparent. It would have been nice to have someone internally who could have slid into the CF position. The problem I see with the Braves under Liberty (and to some extent Wren) is that they are neither fish nor fowl in their approach.
    First I have to say 50, there's a reason I like you as a poster, you hold good debates and never take it personally.

    As far as the market inefficiencies, I think we just wind up in a circular argument cause I could point to Beane siwtching his strategy to highschool and speed/defensive people, you could successfully counter saying Moneyball failed and that's why he abandoned it. I just assume based on what I read that Beane is a bargain hunter because of his payroll.

    I agree that time certainly played a role. I believe he touched on that in Moneyball. And you're right you have to replace expensive guys fast and getting college guys great for that. So I totally agree with your point there.

    My point with McCann is he doesn't have immense power, aside from one year didn't really hit for a super high average and pretty mucheveryone who doesn't really know catching thinks he's a bad catcher. His not pure scout attributes like his patience, and his mechanics behind the plate, etc. build up a better player than it appears. If everyone know what McCann would become he wouldn't have lasted very long in the draft. Pujols would be another example. Some guys produce better results than they look. Some guys look better than their results.

    I agree with you, I don't like the drafts under liberty. Braves have been too conservative, the only picks I've really liked were Wood and Sims. Obviously some other oens worked out well like Gattis, Simmons, Terdo, but in general most of the guys we drafted didn't build much excitement cause they're not high ceiling guys.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to zitothebrave For This Useful Post:

    50PoundHead (07-12-2013)

  21. #56
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    24,620
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,428
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,432
    Thanked in
    2,463 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    The JD Drew trade was even worse IMO.
    Drew trade wasn't the worst. I mean sure Wainwright is arguably the best player traded in either deal, but the Braves traded 4 major league players for Tex.

  22. #57
    Not Actually Brian Hunter Metaphysicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,641
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,547
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,645
    Thanked in
    878 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    The JD Drew trade was even worse IMO.
    I don't think that is particularly close. The JD Drew made sense at the time and got us to the playoffs. It looks worse because Wainwright, the one prospect in the trade, hit his 99% percentile outcome. You can't plan on stuff like that, and I don't want a GM who is scared to pull the trigger because he's scared of low probability outcomes. And frankly, I highly doubt Wainwright becomes the same pitcher in Atlanta, away from Dave Duncan.

    The Tex trade was nonsensical at the time (we desperately needed pitching, not hitting), and we gave up 4(!) top prospects, all of whom have turned into solid or better major leaguers. And Tex did much less for the team than Drew did.

  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Metaphysicist For This Useful Post:

    CyYoung31 (07-09-2013), jpx7 (07-09-2013), TXBravesFan (07-11-2013), zitothebrave (07-09-2013)

  24. #58
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    LaRoche for Gonzalez was a very bad trade. Especially since it set in train a series of events that led to Teixeira.

  25. #59
    Arizona Fall Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    193
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    91
    Thanked in
    57 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphysicist View Post
    I don't think that is particularly close. The JD Drew made sense at the time and got us to the playoffs. It looks worse because Wainwright, the one prospect in the trade, hit his 99% percentile outcome. You can't plan on stuff like that, and I don't want a GM who is scared to pull the trigger because he's scared of low probability outcomes. And frankly, I highly doubt Wainwright becomes the same pitcher in Atlanta, away from Dave Duncan.

    The Tex trade was nonsensical at the time (we desperately needed pitching, not hitting), and we gave up 4(!) top prospects, all of whom have turned into solid or better major leaguers. And Tex did much less for the team than Drew did.
    One point that was missed is that Tex did an absolutely great job with the Braves. In right at a full season's work (157 games over the two seasons), he hit right at .300 with 106 runs scored, 37 homers, 134 RBI and 95 walks. Drew did very well as a Brave, too. In 145 games he hit .305, with 31 homers, 118 runs scored 93 RBI and 118 walks.

    Those are two fine seasons right there.

  26. #60
    Called Up to the Major Leagues AUTiger7222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Cullman, AL
    Posts
    2,036
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    437
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    181
    Thanked in
    137 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Knucksie View Post
    Scout's Honor was presented as some sort of counter to Moneyball, but that wasn't even the gist of the book. Yeah, it's doubtful that it got much attention, outside of Braves fans. It had some interesting anecdotes, like finding out that the Indians offered Brett Butler back to the Braves for Komminsk. Even for a diehard Braves fans, it's non-essential reading. The books that have to be read by Braves fans are Glavine's, Leo's & Schuerholz's. For the record Schuerholz broached the subject of scouting and statistical analysis. He wrote simply, "we use both." That was the end of the discussion to my mind. Bill kept up as if it had to be one or the other. Both have their uses.
    I have JS's book. Also wanna read Smoltz's and Lopez's books.

    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Just like Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine made JS look a lot smarter than he really was.
    Maybe but JS signed Maddux thanks to Ted's deep pockets. He also made a lot of other moves that had a huge impact on turning the Braves around like bringing in Pendleton, Belliard and Bream knowing how important defense was to a pitcher's success. JS also built a WS winner in Kansas City and the Royals haven't come close to making the playoffs since he left. So yeah JS deserves a lot more credit than Billy Beane because Beane's Oakland teams have only made the playoffs 3 or 4 times since he's been there and I think won only 1 playoff series.

Similar Threads

  1. ESPN article re Heyward and Freeman
    By Southcack77 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-09-2017, 03:43 PM
  2. Shapin' Up With Shanks
    By Hawk in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-09-2015, 09:52 PM
  3. Somewhere Bill Shanks is praying...
    By kingphatcow in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 10:16 PM
  4. Bill Shanks back at Scout.com
    By tvsportscaster in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 06-30-2014, 09:32 PM
  5. Good ESPN article on Freeman (and Heyward and Wood)
    By CyYoung31 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-03-2014, 03:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •