Official Red Sox '05 thread | Page 46 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Official Red Sox '05 thread

Sorry, I don't believe in Moneyball, as per my commentary "Alphabet Soup".

Haha, according to the rating, not too many people agree with me...:D
 
RWhitney014 said:
Sorry, I don't believe in Moneyball, as per my commentary "Alphabet Soup".
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you've read the book.

I agree with almost everything he lays out in the book. I do think there are times when you need to play situational baseball, but for the most part I agree with not "giving away" outs.

I don't know how anyone can argue with his evaluation of talent. He's had so much success bringing talent up through his system via the draft.
 
FaninPatsyLand said:
This A's team is going to be good for a LONG time with the young talent they currently have on the team, and the talent coming up through the system.
Click to expand...

While you're on the topic of the A's. I just wanted to throw out the tidbit of info that I went to High school and played football with outfielder Nick Swisher. He's a great guy (I'm better friends with his brother), I'm glad someone I know has made it.
 
FaninPatsyLand said:
I'm assuming you've read the book.

I agree with almost everything he lays out in the book. I do think there are times when you need to play situational baseball, but for the most part I agree with not "giving away" outs.

I don't know how anyone can argue with his evaluation of talent. He's had so much success bringing talent up through his system via the draft.
Click to expand...

You know what happens when you assume, right? To be honest, Fan, you know that I understand the concept perfectly well. Well, let's look at the results according to Oakland under Billy Beane and LA under Paul DePodesta. They are the Atlanta Braves of the West Coast: a whole lot of division titles, no playoff victories to show for it. So tell me, do you want a consistently good team that never results in anything or a team that comes along once every few years and goes the whole way, like my MARLINS (:D )?

Until Moneyball results in anything that actually resembles money, it's just another theory to me.
 
woolhoss said:
While you're on the topic of the A's. I just wanted to throw out the tidbit of info that I went to High school and played football with outfielder Nick Swisher. He's a great guy (I'm better friends with his brother), I'm glad someone I know has made it.
Click to expand...

Cool stuff. He'll be a solid player for a long time.
 
Absolutely a valid point...

Oakland hasn't won a thing using the concept. However, Theo is most definitely a disciple of the Beane way of thinking and guys like Bellhorn, Mueller and Ortiz who were key components to winning the WS last year were acquired using Beane's line of thinking. Hell, Bill James works for the Red Sox as an advisor, that says it all right there. (I understand that Duquette gets absolutely no credit for that 2004 roster, but alot of the guys on that team were brought in on Dan's watch. Therefore, this wasn't strictly Theo's team.)

JP Riccardi in Toronto is buildling a solid team up in Toronto using Beane's theory as well.
 
woolhoss said:
While you're on the topic of the A's. I just wanted to throw out the tidbit of info that I went to High school and played football with outfielder Nick Swisher. He's a great guy (I'm better friends with his brother), I'm glad someone I know has made it.
Click to expand...

I love Swisher, he's such a great talent. Him and Joe Blanton are going to be excellent players one day.
 
FaninPatsyLand said:
Absolutely a valid point...

Oakland hasn't won a thing using the concept. However, Theo is most definitely a disciple of the Beane way of thinking and guys like Bellhorn, Mueller and Ortiz who were key components to winning the WS last year were acquired using Beane's line of thinking. Hell, Bill James works for the Red Sox as an advisor, that says it all right there. (I understand that Duquette gets absolutely no credit for that 2004 roster, but alot of the guys on that team were brought in on Dan's watch. Therefore, this wasn't strictly Theo's team.)

JP Riccardi in Toronto is buildling a solid team up in Toronto using Beane's theory as well.
Click to expand...

I knew you were going to respond with that, and it's valid as well. However, Theo isn't a total Moneyball guy. He also goes and gets what he wants and seems to know what he wants when he wants it. Wow, that's a tongue twister. The only true, 100% Moneyball teams are Oakland and LA, and neither has done anything with all of their division wins over the past few years, more Oakland than LA.

EDIT: Geez, I'm already up to 600 posts...how did that happen?
 
FaninPatsyLand said:
They go by quick, don't they? ;)
Click to expand...

For sure...mostly because of posts like this one...I'll be up to 1,000 before I know it, and you are invited to my party thread. ;) :lol:
 
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the moneyball theory.

Could it be that NL fans are more likely to shy away from a theory like that because most of the games they view depend on alot more "small ball". With pitchers batting, teams are almost forced to give up outs, where as in the American League teams can sit around and wait for the big 3 run homerun because of the designated hitter??

I doubt that's the main reason why the theory is rejected more in the National League, but it could sure be part of it.
 
FaninPatsyLand said:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the moneyball theory.

Could it be that NL fans are more likely to shy away from a theory like that because most of the games they view depend on alot more "small ball". With pitchers batting, teams are almost forced to give up outs, where as in the American League teams can sit around and wait for the big 3 run homerun because of the designated hitter??

I doubt that's the main reason why the theory is rejected more in the National League, but it could sure be part of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's realistic. I'm an NL fan, so naturally I think NL baseball is more "real". Then again, we'd never have had stars like Big Papi and Edgar Martinez, and the immortal Ron Wright (0-3 in his career thus far as a DH for the Mariners, with a strikeout, a double play, and a triple play, IIRC). But the concepts of Moneyball are a little more inbred naturally in NL ball, so I don't see the need to worship OBP over average, WHIP over ERA, etc.
 
Ortiz is the ultimate "Moneyball" player. Remember that the whole principle of Moneyball is not getting big, fat, sluggers who can take a walk, but it's finding players who are undervalued relative to their production. Ortiz was a perfect example. They loved his plate patience and knew he had power, but the Twins didn't value him highly and weren't inclined to pay him much. Epstein swooped in and got him for a pittance, (2 years at $1.5M per annum, if I remember) and Ortiz ended up being a superstar when he got a chance to play regularly.

For all the talk about how smart the Twins are at spotting talent and developing players and all, letting Ortiz walk was a HUGE mistake (and I'm surprised that more isn't made of it). That team could easily have been just a Papi Ortiz away from another World Series title.
 
Gabe Kapler was picked up by the Red Sox last night, and was placed on the 15 day D.L. As a result, a roster spot is not needed right away.

Kapler was great for us last year, and even though he is a downgrade to Payton offensively, he'll be better for us defensively as well as in the clubhouse. Good signing.



Hopefully Clement pitches well and we get to Johnson early, I'm heading down to Fenway now to grab a bite to eat before the game.

Go Sox! :beerbang:
 
FaninPatsyLand said:
Billy Beane is a genious. I couldn't understand why people were criticizing his offseason moves (Hudson and Mulder). This guy has proven he knows what he is doing time and again. This A's team is going to be good for a LONG time with the young talent they currently have on the team, and the talent coming up through the system. One of the top 3 GM's in baseball without a doubt. Although Terry Ryan has done a great job with what he has been given.

Moneyball was great by the way. I've read it 4 times and I would recommend it to any baseball fan.
Click to expand...

No one can really question why Beane traded Muler and Hudson because let's face it he wasn't going to resign both, probably not even resign one of them. So he traded both. I guess he learned his lesson by letting people like Giambi and Tejeda go. Anyway the knock on Beane is that he didn't get fair value back from those guys. People have said that Beane refused to trade them to AL teams in fear of having to face Hudson go to the Braves for basically nothing, last time I looked Charles Thomas was barely hitting .100 in his stay in the majors and Juan Cruz has a great arm but is just trash (there's a reason why a young 20 something year old has been with 3 teams already). As for the Mulder trade it was actually a good trade, both pitchers he got (Harring (spelling?) and Kiko Calero are pretty good pitchers, in fact Harring has almost similar numbers to Mulder).

Moneyball is a good concept but I disagree with the giving up outs part. In my opinion a perfect example was Thursday's Sox/Yankee game... Damon is on 2nd and Renteria bunts him to 3rd with Ortiz and Manny coming up. Now lets assume that Ortiz doesn't get a hit but either his a ground ball or fly ball to the outfield the run scores and the Sox are already up 1 to 0 on the Yankees. Now I know that the score of a Sox/Yanks game will never be 1 to 0 but I feel that you have to strike early against starting pitchers to get to the bullpen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom