Jeremy "Money Ball " Brown Retires

Fixed. If you're going to joke, better to get the guys name right.

 

Good to know, boom, that at least you and I understand this is all in fun as opposed to assholes like JC who don't understand the sarcasm when they read it.

 

I'm far from a saber geek asshole.
If you had read my post earlier I stated I think you should be able to find a balance and that neither side should be so dismissive.

 

You may not like the A's approach; you may completely disagree with Beane's philosophy and might build a baseball team in a completely different manner. But, the results are hard to argue with, and you have to give them credit for getting the maximum value out of the dollars they spend:

Ranking in total player salaries:

2000 - 25th
2001 - 29th
2002 - 28th
2003 - 23rd
2004 - 16th
2005 - 22nd
2006 - 21st
2007 - 17th

Never in the top half of team payrolls over that time. 6 of 8 years in the bottom third.

Playofff appearances - 5 of 8 years

90+ win seasons - 6 of 8 years.

 

The just asshole with suffice.

 

Great post

 

I didn't read the column/story that started this thread, but I wanted to take the time to give my two cents on the whole "Moneyball" phenomenon. And my views have little or nothing to do with how Billy Beane drafts his players.

When this book came out, all the seam-heads I knew were all about it, since the A's were revolutionizing how the game was played. No more stolen bases, no more sacrifices, station-to-station around the diamond until you scored. It had to be successful, I was always told, because the A's were winning.

The reason they won had nothing to do with Scott Hatteberg or another other "Moneyball" finds. It was Tim Hudson, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder. Once those guys left Oakland, the winning stopped. I would argue that the A's might have been more successful in recent years without those three pitchers if they sacrificed the runner over every once in a while, or maybe tried to steal a base.

Again, none of this has anything to do with how Beane goes about finding players. I'm with those who feel there should be a balance between the raw data and what you see on (and off) the field.

Just don't give Beane credit for winning with his offensive style of baseball; it was great pitching that did the trick.

 

Yeah, not so much, as has been since indicated.

And Keith, while the big three were great for the A's, they remained in the top 10 in ERA after all three left up until last season when they were hit by injury. And last season's fall off can be attributed to not only that, but also to lower run production (17th last season) due to a lower OPS (19th).

 

That's true but you also have to toss in Jason Giambi and whatever was fueling him at the time.

Important to note that all of those pitchers along with Giambi / Tejada / Chavez were all drafted by scouting dept.

Moneyball was confusing in that Lewis was giving Beane credit for results that had little to do with his new system.

 

How, GB-Hack?

Nick Swisher is a better model for "Moneyball" than Hatteberg, if to say it had any kind of predictive formula.

And the idea that Moneyball was somehow niche-ish and off the radar around its publishing is absurd. It was written to be a crossover smash and was.

 

The winning didn't stop after Mulder and Hudson left in 2004:

A's won 88 games in 2005; finished with the 10th best record in the majors that year.

Won 93 games to take the AL West and made the playoffs in 2006.

 

You know, after several years of discussion about the undervaluation of college players and OBA it's probably getting to the point that they've become overvalued. I'll bet Beane and others have moved on to other undervalued metrics by now.