OT: Rays Closers

[Rice Cube]

But even in Oakland they used those principles on Hatteberg, Bradford, etc.

Yes, Oakland realized that other teams weren't looking at offensive production in the way that would be most efficient so they acquired as many cheap OBP and FIP guys as they could. Eventually the other teams in the majors caught on (except for the Cubs, lulz) and now Billy Beane has to figure out a new inefficiency to exploit until the Giants stop being dicks and the A's can move to San Jose and make shitloads of money.

 

[inactiveuser1]

Yeah but the problem is now is the term gets thrown around by people like Zan who either don't even know what it is or don't qualify what they think it is in the context they are discussing.

But Moneyball did win the Sox the WS. That's a fact

 

[Rice Cube]

But Moneyball did win the Sox the WS. That's a fact

It's more of an embellishment from the Hollywood movie. FirstTimer being a BoSox fan I'd trust his judgment more. Theo (and Duquette before him) probably used some of the same statistical analysis but they could actually afford to buy the best players (who also happened to have the OBP and the FIP etc). Technically they played Moneyball, because they actually had the money to afford the ideal players :lol:

 

[FirstTimer]

But Moneyball did win the Sox the WS. That's a fact

It absolutely did not.

"Moneyball" is exploiting a market inefficiency on the cheap. The Red Sox didn't do that. In 2004 they had the 2nd highest payroll in baseball(nearly $25 million ahead of the 3rd place team) and had actually increased payroll almost $30 million dollars from the season before.

They weren't OBP centric(if they had been they would not have traded away Nomar).

Sure Theo used advanced stats/metrics to put the team together but that's not "moneyball". No one with a straight face would call a team with a $125 million payroll a "moneyball" team.

Again, you either don't know/don't understand what moneyball is.

 

[Rice Cube]

"Moneyball" is more aptly used for teams (like the Rays) who don't have money but still, through solid trades, signings, drafts, etc can compete with the big boys. In Tampa the emphasis is on scouting and analysis to make up for their shortfalls in money, and pre-CBA they were able to load up on draft picks to boost their farm as well.

The Yankees and Red Sox have excellent scouting and smart guys in the front office but they can afford to buy the best players; they don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find diamonds in the rough, as it were. Eventually the big boys with all the money will catch on though, and that's when they'll have to find the next "Moneyball". That's the problem Beane is having now and that the Rays are going to have to deal with soon.

I think there are ways besides the analytical aspect to play "Moneyball" as well. Tampa for example set up the Longoria special; that kind of contract has to piss off a lot of agents :lol: That's more of a business exploitation than a baseball one though.

 

[FirstTimer]

"Moneyball" is more aptly used for teams (like the Rays) who don't have money but still, through solid trades, signings, drafts, etc can compete with the big boys. In Tampa the emphasis is on scouting and analysis to make up for their shortfalls in money, and pre-CBA they were able to load up on draft picks to boost their farm as well.

The Yankees and Red Sox have excellent scouting and smart guys in the front office but they can afford to buy the best players; they don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find diamonds in the rough, as it were. Eventually the big boys with all the money will catch on though, and that's when they'll have to find the next "Moneyball". That's the problem Beane is having now and that the Rays are going to have to deal with soon.

I think there are ways besides the analytical aspect to play "Moneyball" as well. Tampa for example set up the Longoria special; that kind of contract has to piss off a lot of agents :lol: That's more of a business exploitation than a baseball one though.

Agreed.

The simple use of advanced statistics in and of itself isn't "moneyball".

As Epstein has pointed out guys like Branch Rickey were doing the same thing 50 years prior.


Really good post from Sons of Sam Horn about the 2004 team.

You are forgetting that the 2004 team had high priced free agent pickups such as Manny, Johnny Damon, and Keith Foulke, two veteran starting pitchers that combined to make $29M, and a well-paid home grown player whom the Sox were able to lock up long term in one Nomar. There was a reason that Theo had to go out and pick up all those scrap heap players you mentioned: the Sox farm system was dry at the upper levels, and they needed guys to round out the roster, which had become very top-heavy in 2002. Necessity is the mother of invention.

The 2002 team, although it won 93 games, had a number of holes to fill: 1B, 2B, 3B, DH, and bullpen and starting pitching. Their payroll had Manny ($20M), Pedro ($15.5M), Nomar ($11M), and Damon ($7.5M). The owners had just bought the team and the ballpark, a facility which needed some significant upgrades in order to expand their in-game revenue. Local revenues were strong, but not on as strong as a footing as they are today. Plus the FA market going into 2003 wasn't exactly stellar. Basically, a lot of holes, and not much cash. And also not a lot of great FA's out there that off-season; even the Yankees were relatively quiet. But the Sox did find, as noted, a bunch of unwanted guys that they were able to use to fill those holes, and then some. But they also got lucky, in that most of them suddenly started having career years.

After the 2003 season, they shored up their biggest areas of need by trading for Schilling (and his $12M contract) and signing Foulke; and this was after trying to get A-Rod. The 2004 team had the largest payroll ever for a World Series Champion. Poor teams don't add such major contracts to their payroll.

 

[2SeamHeat]

It absolutely did not.

"Moneyball" is exploiting a market inefficiency on the cheap. The Red Sox didn't do that. In 2004 they had the 2nd highest payroll in baseball(nearly $25 million ahead of the 3rd place team) and had actually increased payroll almost $30 million dollars from the season before.

Thank you for that. I've argued this same exact point until I was blue in the face. "Moneyball" had almost nothing to do with the analysis or strategy involved in assessing players. It had everything to do with finding fringe guys who they could sign for peanut shells and get enough slightly above average play out of to have some shred of success.

What "Moneyball" conveniently left out was the young coming up out of a massively stacked farm system for Oakland that made up the foundation for those playoff teams. Guys like Jason Giambi (just before FA), Eric Chavez, Miguel Tejada, Ben Grieve (in his few good years before the injuries hit him), Ramon Hernandez, were the center of those offenses.. and all making around the league minimum with Giambi as the exception. You also got trade returns of Jermaine Dye and Johnny Damon who both were quite cheap in terms of salary. All recently promoted prospects. Not to mention you had CY-caliber prospects in Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito all at the top of their game and healthy.

The only thing remotely similar to the Red Sox approach and "Moneyball" was how the draft was handled in terms of evaluating talent... and the development of those draftees. A team holding a few of the highest paid players in the game (Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, Nomar Garciaparra, Curt Schilling), can not be considered a "Moneyball" team.

"Moneyball" talked up guys like Stairs, Hatteberg, Appier, etc... but the real story wasn't those guys. It was the young players that turned into stars, and the evaluations and development put in place to find and groom those guys. It's now something that most teams seem to be looking for, the Cubs until recent months not being one of them.