Moneyball 9/23

[Topnotchsy]

Moneyball is about maximizing what you have and trying to beat the system using qualitative methods that other people probably undervalue. 

It isn't about the Oakland Athletics or even OPS. Those were used as a backdrop for what is essentially a business book. The core theories can be applied to many other walks of life. It's been used by the United States Army to try and figure out how it would be that countries with significantly less resources would try to attack the United States. 

For the record, The Blind Side has relatively little to do with Michael Oher. 

Agreed, though I think they are more quantitative methods. It was (in theory) the qualitative methods that were leading to inaccurate assessments.

 

[elmalo]

Curious how/if they will show the postseason failures.

Curious if they will discuss some of the main "players" in the book from the original moneyball class such as JEREMY BROWN and STEVE STANLEY, etc.

skrip

A couple of things to keep in mind when considering Moneyball:

1. They were relying on statistics, and all they hoped to do was improve the odds of finding major league talent. They never assumed or claimed that every one of their signings would be better than any other teams. They simply said that based on the numbers, these guys had a higher likelihood of success. I don't think that we have a large enough sample size to really consider whether they were right or wrong. (He was definitely right on Youk.)

2. Even as the A's were using a different system, they did so with less money than almost every other team, and therefore they had to do the best they could with that budget. It would have been fascinating to see Beane building a team in NY or Boston where he could have picked the best players who fit his model, as opposed to the players who fit his model and also did not fit the traditional model of a valuable baseball player.

I did find it interesting that while they had great statisticians, they were (seemingly) a bit lacking in the strategy department. Why in the world should they make Jeremy Brown a 1st or 2nd round pick if they knew that no one would take him for the first 15-20 rounds. If you are concerned, pick him up in the 12th round, and meanwhile pick up other, more highly touted players you like, or guys other teams like so that you can trade.

I found Moneyball an interesting read. My teacher this semester is actually using it as a text in class (tomorrow night in fact) so I may have more to offer then...

They couldnt afford, or didnt want to pay a high draft pick, or, the high picks were a risk to not sign, so they had to pick someone they knew was gonna sign. The Expos did it a lot as well.

 

[cowboysrule48]

I've always wondered the same thing about the strategy. But I guess they were just playing their game not worrying about the competition which seems to be a flawed strategy in a draft. As much as it was about statistics there is a perception angle that they seemed to neglect to factor in terms of what the other teams were doing. They didn't take advantage of their advantage in scouting when it came to the draft. I'm not sure there is a lot of trading in baseball drafts though compared to football and basketball. I've never sat through a draft.

You can't trade draft picks, but you can trade the players after you sign them.

You can't trade them until they've been on your roster for a year either I believe.

 

[morgoth]

The book is 1/2 about the upcoming draft that was about to take place.

1. The book and its author lauded the first round draft picks and pumped them up in the last half of the book. Heck the last chapters have a little scenerio of Jeremy Brown getting what he thought was a double only to have it be a home run and all the players laughing at him for running so hard. Its meant to show how great that draft really was and how smart the A's management was. If they were "value" picks, the A's didn't act like they were. They acted like they won the lottery.

2. The book also makes the point of how they fixed broken players because Beane was himself a flame out, drafted ahead of Darrel Strawberry by the Mets. He felt he could tell which players only needed their confidence reinforced (the relief pitcher who through side arm) or which ones had the stuff to be a MLB Star (Swisher who he compared to Strawberry).

3. The book makes fun of a lot of GM's and other players. How many times does it mention the fat 1b taken by the Brewers? I mean them stupidly "according to the book and the other A's management quoted in it" taking Prince Fielder allowed Nick Swisher to drop to them, how could they be so lucky and Milwaukee be so stupid????????? Not to mention the Mets GM being ripped almost in every chapter.

4. The book should be updated to explain why the draft didn't pan out the way they hoped and how the game has now shifted.

5. Beane comes out looking kinda crazed, controlling (how he handled his Managers for one) and cocky. I don't think he liked the end results much in most interviews I have read.

 

[lawhs89]

And let's not forget the A's had two MVP's (Giambi and Tejada) who probably took steroids in there careers.

 

[hive17]

I like that they got Royce Clayton to play Tejada

 

[gt2590]

I'm definitely going. I actually can't wait, and really hope it's good.

Also, taking my Dad. It'll probably be the first movie he sees in a theater since Hunt for Red October... :lol:

We're both A's fans. He's a die-hard, since the Philly days. Neither one of us ever embraced "Moneyball" the book, but I liked the strategy behind it. When I started hearing the whispers of a movie deal, I was skeptical there was enough there to make a movie of.

But I also disliked Hatteburg, thinking they overstated his ability... :?

and I REALLY hope they don't show the Jeter-Posada tag play where Giambi didn't slide. My dad swears to this day he was safe and would probably walk out of the theater! :lol:

 

[gt2590]

And let's not forget the A's had two MVP's (Giambi and Tejada) who probably took steroids in there careers.

and two bigger stars too.

Hell, we'd see Miggy in warm-ups and he was cut better than any of 'em...

 

[TBTwinsFan]

And let's not forget the A's had two MVP's (Giambi and Tejada) who did take steroids in there careers.

 

[Big Mac McGwire]

Growing up a A's fan and remembering the height of success of the moneyball teams, Example, the 2000 A's whom i was boasting about when they were up 2-0 against the evil empire and Jeter makes the play on Giambi who was too stoned to slide , still hurts to conjure up. Manny putting the nail in the coffin with a Bomb off Zito & Terrence Long also striking out with the bat on his shoulder against Derek Lowe and the Sox and still is hard to think of in the Playoff appearances following the flip play.

The teams of Frank Thomas,David Justice ,Scott hatteburg, Marco Scutero, Keith Foulke, Hudson, Zito, Mulder, Tejada, Giambi and the most successful team of the Money Ball dynasty of 2006 with Nick Swisher who sadly got swept by the Tigers in the 06 ALCS was a nice run but its sad it did not result in a championship. But i am very happy i will be attending a movie and i will most likely be the most knowledgeable person in attendance out of my friends and probably in the theatre regarding the facts the movie was based off of is cool.

But most have no clue what "Moneyball" is or who it is about. A small market ball club who never won anything i think would be hard draw without an A lister like Pitt. But it is a sports movie, and it is about the team the grew up rooting for and ended up getting seriously frustrated when we fail to resign any of the cornerstone pieces to build upon except Eric Chavez. Moneyball did produce the most successful A's teams since the 92 A's who lost to the Jays in the ALCS as it was 8 season of failure up until 2000, but it is a system that you can not win a championship with. You must sign good offensive players occasionally unless your pitching staff is lights out like the 2010 Giants who did not rely on offensive or you get lucky with a guy like Cody Ross who turns into Babe Ruth during the playoffs. The system is flawed but it is good for a team to draw excitement with making the playoffs, but IMO it will never bring home the hardware.

 

[Topnotchsy]

The book is 1/2 about the upcoming draft that was about to take place.

1. The book and its author lauded the first round draft picks and pumped them up in the last half of the book. Heck the last chapters have a little scenerio of Jeremy Brown getting what he thought was a double only to have it be a home run and all the players laughing at him for running so hard. Its meant to show how great that draft really was and how smart the A's management was. If they were "value" picks, the A's didn't act like they were. They acted like they won the lottery.

2. The book also makes the point of how they fixed broken players because Beane was himself a flame out, drafted ahead of Darrel Strawberry by the Mets. He felt he could tell which players only needed their confidence reinforced (the relief pitcher who through side arm) or which ones had the stuff to be a MLB Star (Swisher who he compared to Strawberry).

3. The book makes fun of a lot of GM's and other players. How many times does it mention the fat 1b taken by the Brewers? I mean them stupidly "according to the book and the other A's management quoted in it" taking Prince Fielder allowed Nick Swisher to drop to them, how could they be so lucky and Milwaukee be so stupid????????? Not to mention the Mets GM being ripped almost in every chapter.

4. The book should be updated to explain why the draft didn't pan out the way they hoped and how the game has now shifted.

5. Beane comes out looking kinda crazed, controlling (how he handled his Managers for one) and cocky. I don't think he liked the end results much in most interviews I have read.

Not sure there is anything to say about this. They never predicted that any specific draft would pan out, just that through their analysis, overall they'd wind up netting better players. One draft may very well be too small a sample size. Not saying that they had everything right, but one draft does not put into question all the ideas they had.

 

[gt2590]

@Big Mac, your stuff was too big to quote right, but I agree with almost all of it.

And the re-signing of Chavez upset me then and still does. Ugh.

 

[packbusta]

Any chance I ever had of getting a Scott Hatteberg signed Ginter are going out the window, I know that.

Why is that?

 

[morgoth]

The book is 1/2 about the upcoming draft that was about to take place.

1. The book and its author lauded the first round draft picks and pumped them up in the last half of the book. Heck the last chapters have a little scenerio of Jeremy Brown getting what he thought was a double only to have it be a home run and all the players laughing at him for running so hard. Its meant to show how great that draft really was and how smart the A's management was. If they were "value" picks, the A's didn't act like they were. They acted like they won the lottery.

2. The book also makes the point of how they fixed broken players because Beane was himself a flame out, drafted ahead of Darrel Strawberry by the Mets. He felt he could tell which players only needed their confidence reinforced (the relief pitcher who through side arm) or which ones had the stuff to be a MLB Star (Swisher who he compared to Strawberry).

3. The book makes fun of a lot of GM's and other players. How many times does it mention the fat 1b taken by the Brewers? I mean them stupidly "according to the book and the other A's management quoted in it" taking Prince Fielder allowed Nick Swisher to drop to them, how could they be so lucky and Milwaukee be so stupid????????? Not to mention the Mets GM being ripped almost in every chapter.

4. The book should be updated to explain why the draft didn't pan out the way they hoped and how the game has now shifted.

5. Beane comes out looking kinda crazed, controlling (how he handled his Managers for one) and cocky. I don't think he liked the end results much in most interviews I have read.

Not sure there is anything to say about this. They never predicted that any specific draft would pan out, just that through their analysis, overall they'd wind up netting better players. One draft may very well be too small a sample size. Not saying that they had everything right, but one draft does not put into question all the ideas they had.

That Jeremy Brown thing is the Coda to the whole book. If you aren't a big baseball nerd you might not realize that he never became a good MLB player, or even a bench warmer.

It would be good to update each player on why they did or didn't make it and how the draft has changed and why Beane still hasn't won a WS (the whole crapshoot argument given in the book is loser, defetist BS, its just MAGIC how the Yankees or other teams can win but not them) or really been that good since the book came out.

It would be a much more honest coda and be much more enjoyable to future generations.

 

[morgoth]

Movie is out and guess which part of the book they left out completely? :?: :?: :|

 

[Tomlinson21RB]

Movie is out and guess which part of the book they left out completely? :?: :?: :|

Wait, a movie based on a book didn't hold 100% true to the book? You mean a writer/director purposefully left out parts of a book to romanticize the story to appeal to a larger viewing audience? I never would have guessed this would happen in a million years.

 

[Zymco]

Beane was NOT drafted ahead of strawberry. The mets took strawberry number one overall and got beane later in the draft.

 

[morgoth]

Movie is out and guess which part of the book they left out completely? :?: :?: :|

Wait, a movie based on a book didn't hold 100% true to the book? You mean a writer/director purposefully left out parts of a book to romanticize the story to appeal to a larger viewing audience? I never would have guessed this would happen in a million years.

Considering they omitted the entire second half of the book, including the last chapter and coda, yeah I would say it was pretty important part of the book that is missing from the movie.

I agree a movie could not have been made about a draft though so I can see why but it shows why people thought this book couldn't be made into a faithful movie adaption.