Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    4,272
    vCash
    1500
    I'll definitely look into reading it. I know the book has drawn great reviews and is very popular.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,879
    vCash
    1500
    Good article.

    People can say "Moneyball" was about finding market inefficiencies generally, but the book itself really was more about the whole scouts vs. stats, and big slow players who walk a lot, mentality. I tend to be a fan of statistical analysis, but never was that much a fan of the "moneyball" version, which was too much of a caricature of statistical analysis. Nonetheless, I think it does pretty fairly represent what a lot of "moneyball"" fans at the time actually believed.

    And you can even look at the current standings and see that many teams which were touted as stat-savvy organizations haven't fared all that well: the A's, Mariners, and Padres are all in the bottom 10, for example. Of course the Red Sox and Rays, on the other hand, are still looking pretty good; but that's probably because they did the best job of integrating a smart approach to analysis with already strong scouting departments.

    In short, being stat-savvy is good, but it isn't any kind of guarantee. You still need scouting, player development, etc. And you don't want to get carried away with the latest and greatest stats and start thinking you know more than you do.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    15,668
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GottaBelieve View Post
    I think the fundamental concept behind Moneyball, or whatever you want to call it, is having an intelligent approach to acquiring talent so you maximize every dollar you spend.

    No, it hasn't exactly brought major success to Oakland. But I think it's a bit harsh to call what Beane has done a failure. He still does more with less.

    The Mets in the past few years have been the opposite of that. They have gotten very little value from the money they have invested. And that's the point of bringing in Alderson.

    You want to see the philosophy of maximizing return on investment work? Look at the Red Sox. They have an intelligent approach to player moves, and they do it with a big budget.
    Have monies paid to J.D. Drew, Dice-K, Lackey, and Crawford produced a maximum return on their investment so far?
    "The 90 wins is about challenge. It's about changing the conversation. It's about framing questions for ourselves as to how we get there. So I stand by the notion that we need to get better, and in doing so we need to set concrete goals for ourselves so that we have sort of specific conversations among ourselves about how we're going to get there." -- Mr. Alderson

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    School in Hoboken, home in Rockland County, NY
    Posts
    54,870
    vCash
    1500
    LOL at the A's stepping away from the montras of Moneyball


    Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies. They haven't stepped away from anything, they now think high school players may be currently undervalued.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    6,874
    vCash
    1500
    Just got the book a few days ago but haven't started yet cuz of school work.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,574
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by metsgiants35 View Post
    you know or having three dominant pitchers, two of who were first round picks, two guys juicing and yet another guy who was a first round pick who was a mvp candidate.
    All teams had juicers.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    30,605
    vCash
    1500
    Originally Posted by clayamtion
    I wonder what ugly-fat guy they can get to play you in the movie.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    ???????

    Is that a joke? Don't quit your day job buddy.

    Besides which I didn't say we were having a play to re-enact the movie, but rather the concept of Moneyball is trying to be applied to our business.
    Lighten up Francis, that was a funny line. I'm fairly certain Clay didn't think your company was play-acting the movie.
    "Mr. Martin Tanner, Baritone, of Dayton, Ohio made his Town Hall debut last night. He came well prepared, but unfortunately his presentation was not up to contemporary professional standards. His voice lacks the range of tonal color necessary to make it consistently interesting. Full time consideration of another endeavor might be in order."

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    30,605
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GoNyMetsGo View Post
    All teams had juicers.
    Yeh, but the A's back then were particulary good at it.
    "Mr. Martin Tanner, Baritone, of Dayton, Ohio made his Town Hall debut last night. He came well prepared, but unfortunately his presentation was not up to contemporary professional standards. His voice lacks the range of tonal color necessary to make it consistently interesting. Full time consideration of another endeavor might be in order."

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    37,227
    vCash
    2100
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    Have monies paid to J.D. Drew, Dice-K, Lackey, and Crawford produced a maximum return on their investment so far?
    2004 and 2007 say hi, in big bold letters. Worked pretty well then.

    Just because some signings don't pan out doesn't mean they were bad signings at the time. You can use hindsight to make anything look a certain way.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,265
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Corey View Post
    2004 and 2007 say hi, in big bold letters. Worked pretty well then.

    Just because some signings don't pan out doesn't mean they were bad signings at the time. You can use hindsight to make anything look a certain way.
    If nobody was allowed to use hindsight, Omar Minaya would still have his job because the Mets were consistently one of the best teams in baseball on paper from 2007-2009, yet people still called him the worst GM in baseball (he wasn't, and I do agree with your point to an extent).

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    37,227
    vCash
    2100
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymfan87 View Post
    If nobody was allowed to use hindsight, Omar Minaya would still have his job because the Mets were consistently one of the best teams in baseball on paper from 2007-2009, yet people still called him the worst GM in baseball (he wasn't, and I do agree with your point to an extent).
    Yea, I agree. There's just a huge difference between whether a contract is good at the time the deal is made, and whether it's still a good deal at the end of the contract.

    This would never happen, but say hypothetically Lackey wins 18 games next year with a sub 4 ERA. I doubt anyone would be saying a word about his contract like they are now. It's just the way the tide turns. It's really easy to look back on a deal and say "wow, that sucked", when the deal was in fact smart at the time.

    If a player doesn't pan out, that's out of an organization's control. The Sox had someone literally tailing Crawford for months to make sure he was legitimate. NO ONE could have expected him to have this sort of a down year. At the time, the only criticism was "Hey, the Sox overpaid for Crawford, but he's a damn good player". Now it's "Wow, I cant believe they shelled out for that bum, what a bust".

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    15,668
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Corey View Post
    2004 and 2007 say hi, in big bold letters. Worked pretty well then.

    Just because some signings don't pan out doesn't mean they were bad signings at the time. You can use hindsight to make anything look a certain way.
    I agree partially with what you say, and disagree on another count.

    01. You are correct. Just because a player fails to earn the monies paid to him, doesn't mean that it was not a good decision to sign him.

    02. However. My point was that the BoSox have often not received maximum or even reasonable returns on monies paid to some players based upon expected statistical outcomes. This is a fact. Players like Dice K, Drew, Crawford, and Lackey have not earned their salaries.

    Does that mean the decisions to sign them were poor? No. Not necessarily. There's always risk, and these players had good histories of productivity.

    I think the point you are making now is that despite receiving less than reasonable returns on monies paid to certain players, the BoSox have won Championships. Fair enough, but that is a different perspective and you can choose from which to see whether or not they received fair value on thier investments.

    However, neither Lackey or Crawford have won Championships with Boston, so...
    "The 90 wins is about challenge. It's about changing the conversation. It's about framing questions for ourselves as to how we get there. So I stand by the notion that we need to get better, and in doing so we need to set concrete goals for ourselves so that we have sort of specific conversations among ourselves about how we're going to get there." -- Mr. Alderson

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    15,668
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Corey View Post
    Yea, I agree. There's just a huge difference between whether a contract is good at the time the deal is made, and whether it's still a good deal at the end of the contract.

    This would never happen, but say hypothetically Lackey wins 18 games next year with a sub 4 ERA. I doubt anyone would be saying a word about his contract like they are now. It's just the way the tide turns. It's really easy to look back on a deal and say "wow, that sucked", when the deal was in fact smart at the time.

    If a player doesn't pan out, that's out of an organization's control. The Sox had someone literally tailing Crawford for months to make sure he was legitimate. NO ONE could have expected him to have this sort of a down year. At the time, the only criticism was "Hey, the Sox overpaid for Crawford, but he's a damn good player". Now it's "Wow, I cant believe they shelled out for that bum, what a bust".
    Very true.
    "The 90 wins is about challenge. It's about changing the conversation. It's about framing questions for ourselves as to how we get there. So I stand by the notion that we need to get better, and in doing so we need to set concrete goals for ourselves so that we have sort of specific conversations among ourselves about how we're going to get there." -- Mr. Alderson

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    27,268
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    Have monies paid to J.D. Drew, Dice-K, Lackey, and Crawford produced a maximum return on their investment so far?
    Not every move will work for any team. The fact is that the red sox are a consistently successful organization. And they got that way by spending money and also making intelligent decisions.
    Go Grab My Belt

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,879
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    02. However. My point was that the BoSox have often not received maximum or even reasonable returns on monies paid to some players based upon expected statistical outcomes. This is a fact. Players like Dice K, Drew, Crawford, and Lackey have not earned their salaries.
    I disagree on Drew. Drew for the Red Sox was paid $70M and delivered 13.4 WAR per fangraphs. That's $5.2M per win, about market rate for a big city team in free agency.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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