MLB Playoffs Thread

Julio3000 said:
So I guess Dayton and Ned are geniuses and Beane and Melvin are dummies, amirite?
Click to expand...

Neither. Billy Beane isn't the GM God some think he is. Bob Melvin isn't the managerial genius some think he is. Dayton Moore isn't the GM idiot that some think he is. Ned Yost isn't the worthless manager some think he is.

I don't dislike Billy Beane. I dislike the fact that he is put on a pedestal as some amazing GM when he's won exactly zilch as a major league GM, while someone that is a GM from more of a traditional scouting background that has no use for some of the vague statistics that people have come up with is considered to be a bad GM.

There have been people that have mocked John Shuerholz for saying the Braves need to get back to the "Braves Way" of doing things, yet Shuerholz and the "Braves Way" of doing this has been far more successful than Billy Beane and his "Moneyball" way of doing things. I personally think it is poetic justice that a team who has essentially been built with the "Braves Way" philosophy just beat a Billy Beane Moneyball team that completely collapsed over the second half of the year. The bottom line though is that it comes down to the players on the field.
 
I'm probably going to be laughed at, but oh well. Just have to say I really don't particularly care for all the beer in these clubhouse celebrations.
 
50PoundHead said:
That's a pretty good bullpen all told and I am not going to advocate that small ball is the answer in the playoffs. It helps to have a team that can play flexibly, but sometimes things do or don't come together for a team in the short run without rhyme or reason.

I think Billy Beane is a very good general manager. But I do get a chuckle out of all the folks that somehow think that he invented baseball and Michael Lewis chronicled the event in Moneyball. Having read the book twice, I can only say that (and I'll admit that I've been more than a casual fan over the years) almost everything discussed in the book is pretty much conventional wisdom when to comes to the evaluation of players. Some of the things that Bill James and Voros McCracken and others have done provide a new set of lenses through which the evaluation can take place, but things like "batting eye" were talked about as long as I can remember.

This edition of the A's reminded me of the late-90's Braves' teams. Very good front line pitching. Solid bullpen. Power without much speed. Okay defense. And they met the same end. The folks over at the MLB network who were crowing after Beane's moves at the trading deadline that the rest of baseball may as well close up shop and that the A's now had more than enough pitching to go along with the most balanced line-up in baseball. I nearly choked. Go up-and-down that A's line-up with an unbiased eye and it doesn't look all that great.
Click to expand...

The late 90's Braves were still making the WS or making deep runs in the playoffs. Not a great example if you're trying to berate the Moneyball concept.
 
CrimsonCowboy said:
Dear Giants,

Please sweep the Gnats.

Sincerely,
Braves Country
Click to expand...

Not this Braves fan. Will never, ever root for the Cards or Giants. Eff em I say. In fact if there was a way that all the NL teams remaining could simultaneously lose and make the AL inner the defacto champion, then I would choose that option.

But at least in the case of the Nats, Adam LaRoche could possibly get a ring. But I still wont be rooting for any NL teams.
 
CrimsonCowboy said:
I'm probably going to be laughed at, but oh well. Just have to say I really don't particularly care for all the beer in these clubhouse celebrations.
Click to expand...
1593630.gif
 
Carp said:
The late 90's Braves were still making the WS or making deep runs in the playoffs. Not a great example if you're trying to berate the Moneyball concept.
Click to expand...

Who's berating the Moneyball concept? I'm saying the Braves' formula throughout their storied run wasn't all that different from the formula that Beane used to construct this edition of the A's. Schuerholz had a thicker wallet and I've always respected Beane's ability to manage his payroll wisely (and not dole out stacks of dead money ala Frank Wren), but the pitching/power combination has always been the most reliable indicator of baseball success provided there are not gaping weaknesses in other parts of a team's arsenal.

I'm just saying the whole Moneyball thing is nothing really new. Some of the advanced stats stuff is just a new way--sometimes valuable--of looking at an old problem: How do you identify good players and how do you construct a good team? Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. In the process, Lewis took a lot of unnecessary shots at baseball traditionalists. Tools matter. Scouting matters. Minor league instruction matters. In-game strategy matters. Lewis didn't seem to think so and if you don't believe me, read Moneyball again.

Lewis has made a great career out of promoting the rebel (and he's a really smart guy), but, in the end, I believe the entire argument here is a straw man.
 
Well, the Giants might, but there haven't been a lot of teams Timmy has played for that had much between their legs when October rolled around.
 
It's early, but man if the Angels lose this series... I wonder if the huge hard on people have here for Mike Scioscia will go soft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top