Playoffs Thread

50PoundHead said:
I'm not looking for a fight here (and I'll put my GREs up against anyone on this board). I appreciate what analytics can do when comparing the value of Player A against Player B, but I don't think anything the A's did with statistics had that much to do with their successful run. They had a great core of young players (especially starting pitchers) that put them in a position to win until they couldn't afford them anymore.
Click to expand...

Moneyball was an entertaining read, but the Big 3, including our old pal Hudson, had plenty to do with their success. It was hardly mentioned.
 
Moneyball had more to do with Michael Lewis' view of the world than it did with Beane's.

As for the GRE, it's all facts.
 
Knucksie said:
Moneyball was an entertaining read, but the Big 3, including our old pal Hudson, had plenty to do with their success. It was hardly mentioned.
Click to expand...

and Tejada and Chavez.

But Lewis is a good writer who likes stories. It's why his books are so easy to read and entertaining. He takes some licenses and I think the As were simply the vehicle he used to make a grander point that maybe wasn't a 100% accurate.

He is a lot like Gladwell really.
 
Beane's been pretty mediocre the last decade after the Big 3 dissolved and moved on and has made some just awful mind boggling moves during that time frame as well. Most overrated GM in history behind JS
 
Southcack77 said:
and Tejada and Chavez.

But Lewis is a good writer who likes stories. It's why his books are so easy to read and entertaining. He takes some licenses and I think the As were simply the vehicle he used to make a grander point that maybe wasn't a 100% accurate.

He is a lot like Gladwell really.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. Too lazy to search but wasn't that MVP year for Tejada?
 
Millwood1Hitter said:
Beane's been pretty mediocre the last decade after the Big 3 dissolved and moved on and has made some just awful mind boggling moves during that time frame as well. Most overrated GM in history behind JS
Click to expand...

The overrated JS picked Beane's pockets on the Hudson deal. One less thing for the usual suspects to bitch about.
 
Knucksie said:
Moneyball was an entertaining read, but the Big 3, including our old pal Hudson, had plenty to do with their success. It was hardly mentioned.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that while Beane had the right idea in mind (making data-centric decisions), some of his assumptions were just flat out wrong. His position that defense didn't matter cost the Athletics wins. People don't realize that Chris Pratt Hatteberg (who did have a good first year in Oakland) was a replacement level player for the next three years in Oakland. He was one of the shining examples of Beane's brilliance from Lewis' book. The data we have now shows that Beane was wrong.
 
Knucksie said:
The overrated JS picked Beane's pockets on the Hudson deal. One less thing for the usual suspects to bitch about.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you have to geniuses in the room at the same time. Both are so smug and arrogant they just can't get out of the way of themselves...and someone has to win.

JS thought he was acquiring another top notch starter like Maddux, when all signs were pointing that Hudson was in decline. Don't get me wrong he still was a very good pitcher but this wasn't acquiring a top tier ace at the peak of their prime, therefore Hudson's value wasn't as high as many perceive it should have been. But our buffoon up stairs thought that he was assembling a better pitching staff that we even had in the nineties with Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz in their primes with the likes of Hudson, Hampton, and John Thomson!

Beanie on the hand was clearly overthinking things and trying to make everyone look dumb by taking a horrible deal. Dan Meyer was never going to amount to much at the big league level and Charles Thomas rode a hit streak for the As to believe they acquired the next Kenny Lofton. It was a risk, if those players would have amounted to anything, and we knew they wouldn't, Beane would have been annointed baseballs greatest genius of all time all the while his organization would have been better off taking the safer and "better" option on the table.
 
I may be in the minority, but a rotation of Smoltz, Hudson, healthy Hampton, Thomson, and Jaret Wright was pretty good. We will be really lucky if we have a rotation as good as that one any time soon.
 
chop2chip said:
Not to mention the fact that while Beane had the right idea in mind (making data-centric decisions), some of his assumptions were just flat out wrong. His position that defense didn't matter cost the Athletics wins. People don't realize that Chris Pratt Hatteberg (who did have a good first year in Oakland) was a replacement level player for the next three years in Oakland. He was one of the shining examples of Beane's brilliance from Lewis' book. The data we have now shows that Beane was wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those 8 playoff appearances in the 2000s despite a bottom of the barrel payroll shows how dumb he is. What a moron!! He only participated in 8 of the 17 playoffs this century. Terrible!!

Hatteberg was bad after 1 good season. Pfft. Who needs stats?
 
Enscheff said:
Yeah, those 8 playoff appearances in the 2000s despite a bottom of the barrel payroll shows how dumb he is. What a moron!!

Hatteberg was bad after 1 good season. Pfft. Who needs stats?
Click to expand...

By your measure of success, JS is a revolutionary.

I'm not stating Beane is a moron. I just think he is more of a beneficiary of a great pool of talented young players that propped up his outsized reputation. On the other hand, I think Friedman deserves all the praise he's received and more.

Context matters
 
chop2chip said:
By your measure of success, JS is a revolutionary.

I'm not stating Beane is a moron. I just think he is more of a beneficiary of a great pool of talented young players that propped up his outsized reputation. On the other hand, I think Friedman deserves all the praise he's received and more.

Context matters
Click to expand...

Now wait a second, I was told by several resident board geniuses that acquiring young talent is the best way to judge a GM (even if they inherit it from the previous GM).

Or is that only true when they want to say the Braves FO is brilliant?

It's so confusing trying to apply consistent logic to pozzies.
 
Enscheff said:
Now wait a second, I was told by several resident board geniuses that acquiring young talent is the best way to judge a GM.

Or is that only true when they want to say the Braves FO is brilliant?

It's so confusing trying to apply consistent logic to pozzies.
Click to expand...

Two questions

(1) Did I say that is the only barometer to measure GM success? It's an easy straw man to equate everyone who disagrees with you as clv or thethe

(2) What did I say about Beane that's wrong?
 
Enscheff said:
Now wait a second, I was told by several resident board geniuses that acquiring young talent is the best way to judge a GM (even if they inherit it from the previous GM).

Or is that only true when they want to say the Braves FO is brilliant?

It's so confusing trying to apply consistent logic to pozzies.
Click to expand...

Funny... We're not confused at all!!!:cooter:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top