Uh Oh...Bill Simmons comments on Moneyball

[Caryatid]

From Sports Guy's ESPN article ranking the AL teams:

 

"(By the way, I loved "Moneyball," but doesn't it take a hit in the historical sense because there were entire chapters devoted to Billy Beane's genius for coming up with guys like Scott Hatteberg, Jeremy Brown and Chad Bradford? Thank God for Nick Swisher -- he saved the book from retroactively ranking in the 90s on the Unintentional Comedy Scale. And frankly, there's still time.)"

 

--I'll sit back and wait for the board to go down due to all the angry responses to this comment.

[Derwood]

uh oh?

[Caryatid]

uh oh?

 

 

Yeah-uh oh, someone dared to knock Moneyball and Billy Beane.

[CuseCubFan69]

Anyone can knock Billy Beane all they want but don't even think about saying anything bad about Billy Barty. That's where I draw the line.

[UMFan83]

Couple of points:

 

1) OK, Jeremy Brown sucks.

2) Hatteberg was a productive player for the A's, so was Bradford. And they were cheap too. No they weren't Albert Pujols, but they didn't have the money for players like that....kind of umm...the point of the book.

3) An opposing point: I'm pretty sure Nick Swisher was the anti-Moneyball guy that they took. The sure thing guy that the scouts loved.

 

Bottom line was, the point of the book for the millionth time was not OBP, nor was it about picking players that scouts hate in the draft. It is about finding new ways to evaluate talent that other teams aren't looking for (therefore making them more affordable). You'd think with a book called "Moneyball" people would understand this. It's not like they called it "OBPBall" or "HatingOnScoutsball"

[RynoRules]

Couple of points:

 

1) OK, Jeremy Brown sucks.

2) Hatteberg was a productive player for the A's, so was Bradford. And they were cheap too. No they weren't Albert Pujols, but they didn't have the money for players like that....kind of umm...the point of the book.

3) An opposing point: I'm pretty sure Nick Swisher was the anti-Moneyball guy that they took. The sure thing guy that the scouts loved.

 

Bottom line was, the point of the book for the millionth time was not OBP, nor was it about picking players that scouts hate in the draft. It is about finding new ways to evaluate talent that other teams aren't looking for (therefore making them more affordable). You'd think with a book called "Moneyball" people would understand this. It's not like they called it "OBPBall" or "HatingOnScoutsball"

 

I agree with the bolded portion, but you would have to admit, I think, that Lewis painted Beane as a misunderstood genuis (compared to the "establishment") who looks down on the majority of his peers, and who would have been a great player in his own right had he decided he wanted to be (but ultimately lacked passion for playing). I think that some people find those characterizations to be inflammatory.

[Drew Doughty]

Couple of points:

 

1) OK, Jeremy Brown sucks.

2) Hatteberg was a productive player for the A's, so was Bradford. And they were cheap too. No they weren't Albert Pujols, but they didn't have the money for players like that....kind of umm...the point of the book.

3) An opposing point: I'm pretty sure Nick Swisher was the anti-Moneyball guy that they took. The sure thing guy that the scouts loved.

 

Swisher was loved by the scouts for his physical ability AND Beane because he posted great numbers.

[Soriano12]

Has anyone read Hendry's latest book..its a counter to MoneyBall

 

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4448/jhje2.jpg

[UMFan83]

Has anyone read Hendry's latest book..its a counter to MoneyBall

 

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4448/jhje2.jpg

 

 

Ugh for the last time, Jim Hendry didn't write that book. Andy MacPhail wrote that ABOUT Jim Hendry.

[pete the dog]

Has anyone read Hendry's latest book..its a counter to MoneyBall

 

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4448/jhje2.jpg

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[goonys evil twin]

Ugh for the last time, Jim Hendry didn't write that book. Andy MacPhail wrote that ABOUT Jim Hendry.

 

Joe Morgan won't even read it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Has anyone read Hendry's latest book..its a counter to MoneyBall

 

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4448/jhje2.jpg

 

"Yo' a handsome man, Mr. Garrison..."

[ToupeeOnFire]

Has anyone read Hendry's latest book..its a counter to MoneyBall

 

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4448/jhje2.jpg

 

 

Ugh for the last time, Jim Hendry didn't write that book. Andy MacPhail wrote that ABOUT Jim Hendry.

I thought Phil Rogers wrote it.

[soccer10k]

Beane tries to find traits in players that a majority of people in baseball undervalue and finds a way to make them fit with his team. Generally, be cause these traits are undervalued, Beane is able to sign those players for less money.

[3Dog]

Wasn't Hendry's book called "Dollars To Donuts"?

[Drew Doughty]

Wasn't Hendry's book called "Dollars To Donuts"?

 

no, it was "donuts to mouth."

[3Dog]

You got the general idea where I was going with it, lawl..... :wink:

[Soriano12]

Wasn't Hendry's book called "Dollars To Donuts"?

 

no, it was "donuts to mouth."

 

:lol:

[Hatman]

Wasn't Hendry's book called "Dollars To Donuts"?

 

Based on his bathroom scale, it's more like "Dollars For Donuts"

[rocket]

bill simmons is an idiot.

 

scott hatteberg is hitting .322/.415/.490 while making 750 grand. how is he "disproving" moneyball?

 

chad bradford has a 3.12 era with a 1.11 whip. he was never portrayed as anything but a good relief pitcher who is overlooked. i don't see how he's "disproving" moneyball.

 

jeremy brown is a prospect, always was a prospect. most prospects don't turn out very well. big deal.

[10man]

I agree with the bolded portion, but you would have to admit, I think, that Lewis painted Beane as a misunderstood genuis (compared to the "establishment") who looks down on the majority of his peers, and who would have been a great player in his own right had he decided he wanted to be (but ultimately lacked passion for playing). I think that some people find those characterizations to be inflammatory.

Billy Beane was given a little bit too much credit in the book, partly because he is an interesting personality and he did give the writer access to a lot of insider things.

 

I still say that the real architect of that successfully built A's organization was Sandy Alderson. Billy was just smart enough to follow what he was taught.

[RynoRules]

I agree with the bolded portion, but you would have to admit, I think, that Lewis painted Beane as a misunderstood genuis (compared to the "establishment") who looks down on the majority of his peers, and who would have been a great player in his own right had he decided he wanted to be (but ultimately lacked passion for playing). I think that some people find those characterizations to be inflammatory.

Billy Beane was given a little bit too much credit in the book, partly because he is an interesting personality and he did give the writer access to a lot of insider things.

 

I still say that the real architect of that successfully built A's organization was Sandy Alderson. Billy was just smart enough to follow what he was taught.

 

I completely agree with this statement. Even Beane would, I think.

[goonys evil twin]

I agree with the bolded portion, but you would have to admit, I think, that Lewis painted Beane as a misunderstood genuis (compared to the "establishment") who looks down on the majority of his peers, and who would have been a great player in his own right had he decided he wanted to be (but ultimately lacked passion for playing). I think that some people find those characterizations to be inflammatory.

Billy Beane was given a little bit too much credit in the book, partly because he is an interesting personality and he did give the writer access to a lot of insider things.

 

I still say that the real architect of that successfully built A's organization was Sandy Alderson. Billy was just smart enough to follow what he was taught.

 

I completely agree with this statement. Even Beane would, I think.

 

Alderson was the initial architect, but Beane did more than just show up at the right place and right time. If this was any other team in baseball, and the Moneyball book was not written and OBP and sabermetrics wasn't involved, people would be praising Beane instead of looking for every little thing to nitpick. It's that everlasting desire to hold onto the outdated thoughts of the past that causes people to poo-poo what Beane has done. He took over a team that had gone 5 straight seasons with a losing record. Then the team improved its win totals for 5 straight seasons after he arrived. They had their first 90 win season a full 3 seasons after Alderson left.

 

It baffles me how much effort people try to put into belittling Billy Beane's work simply because he's somewhat of a maverick in this game. It's absolutely absurd that people still try to bad mouth what he has done.

[RynoRules]

I agree with the bolded portion, but you would have to admit, I think, that Lewis painted Beane as a misunderstood genuis (compared to the "establishment") who looks down on the majority of his peers, and who would have been a great player in his own right had he decided he wanted to be (but ultimately lacked passion for playing). I think that some people find those characterizations to be inflammatory.

Billy Beane was given a little bit too much credit in the book, partly because he is an interesting personality and he did give the writer access to a lot of insider things.

 

I still say that the real architect of that successfully built A's organization was Sandy Alderson. Billy was just smart enough to follow what he was taught.

 

I completely agree with this statement. Even Beane would, I think.

 

Alderson was the initial architect, but Beane did more than just show up at the right place and right time. If this was any other team in baseball, and the Moneyball book was not written and OBP and sabermetrics wasn't involved, people would be praising Beane instead of looking for every little thing to nitpick. It's that everlasting desire to hold onto the outdated thoughts of the past that causes people to poo-poo what Beane has done. He took over a team that had gone 5 straight seasons with a losing record. Then the team improved its win totals for 5 straight seasons after he arrived. They had their first 90 win season a full 3 seasons after Alderson left.

 

It baffles me how much effort people try to put into belittling Billy Beane's work simply because he's somewhat of a maverick in this game. It's absolutely absurd that people still try to bad mouth what he has done.

 

Here we go again.

 

I didn't take a shot at your idol, Goony. I simply noted that I understand why some find him to be a polarizing figure, and never said he showed up at the right place and time. I agreed that Alderson should be given a ton of credit in terms of developing a philosophy that has proven to be succesful in the long run, and then mentoring Beane under that approach. I then credited Beane for being intellgent enough to take that philosophy and run with it, adding his own ideas along the way. I also noted that - based on the Lewis' book - Beane seems to be an arrogant, anti-social, and deeply flawed individual. That dosn't mean that I don't appreciate and respect his approach to what he does professionally. There's a difference, and that difference should be obvious to someone like you.

 

So before you overreact and lump me into the Beane-hater crowd (I find it ironic that you who so often attack people for making generalizations would do this), take another look at what I wrote.

[Magnetic Curses]

From Sports Guy's ESPN article ranking the AL teams:

 

"(By the way, I loved "Moneyball," but doesn't it take a hit in the historical sense because there were entire chapters devoted to Billy Beane's genius for coming up with guys like Scott Hatteberg, Jeremy Brown and Chad Bradford? Thank God for Nick Swisher -- he saved the book from retroactively ranking in the 90s on the Unintentional Comedy Scale. And frankly, there's still time.)"

 

--I'll sit back and wait for the board to go down due to all the angry responses to this comment.

 

no anger here, just dissapointment in people who are in high places as sports analysts who know absolutely nothing about baseball that they didn't learn from the movie "major league". i guess i understand why billy beane seems so smug, it's because he CAN be. i can't believe that even when michael lewis spoonfeeds it to us, some can't even grasp it.

 

moneyball was NOT about simply exploiting inconsistencies in the market of baseball. It WAS about OBP, and that it's undervalued. if teams had undervalued defense, he wouldn't have exploited THAT incosistency, because undervaluing defense is not really exploitable, defense isn't nearly as important as OBP. Billy Beane was able to find that the single most important conventional statistic in the game of baseball (also referred to as "outs NOT made") was also it's most ignored.

 

There was also a part about pitching and the findings of voros mccracken, whom i don't necessarily agree with, but whose points are nevertheless valid ones.

 

um, chad bradford is a cheap pitcher who has been very consistently effective over the course of his career. i think that was the point. does bill simmons even know what baseball is? again, it's easy to be smug when you're surrounded by dunces.

 

hatteberg? his production over the course of his career speaks for itself. again, the smugness is warranted if your peers don't understand who scott hatteberg is or what he has done. i'd say he's probably the most cost-effective player of the last 20 years. but hey, among those with the entirely understandable inferiority complex, he doesn't exist. how can one not be smug when people don't know who scott hatteberg is?

 

jeremy brown, as rocket has said, a prospect, whom beane took a cheap flier on, so what?

 

and nick swisher reminded beane of lenny dykstra, he had the right attitude and approach to the game. you can't necessarily acquire players who understand the importance of OBP, but you can acquire players who just be themselves and good things follow.

 

no, beane's team does not have a good OBP right now, and they may be due to his artificially encouraging players to go up to the plate looking for walks all throughout the a's system. but the a's are a work in progress and that's beane genius. no theory is complete.