Uh Oh...Bill Simmons comments on Moneyball

[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 It's that everlasting desire to hold onto the outdated thoughts of the past that causes people to poo-poo what Beane has done.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.

 

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.

 

I look at what you wrote and it's quite obvious that it's a backhanded compliment of Beane, or a slight. Just another attempt to pretend he hasn't done great things with that team. Alderson was the GM for about 15 years, the last 3rd of which he had a crap team. Beane came along and the team went on a string of 5 straight years of improvement. That's not a case of the previous guy setting up the current guy for success.

 

People can't just say Beane is a great GM and has done a tremendous job. They have to qualify it in a way they simply would not do if it weren't for the book, or if the team did it the old fashioned way.

 

I stand by my statement.

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Sulley, what abou this quote from Beane from 2004?

 

"BB: Exactly, guys like Scottie Hatteberg. Now people are recognizing the value of that and they're paying for it. And if we're in a bidding war, we're going to lose that. So we have evolved. If you look at some of our first playoff teams, the `99 team that won 87 games, it was a power, on-base team. Now we're tops in the league in defense and pitching. For us, it's all about filling in on the backend and figuring out what people are undervaluing. You know, one day we're going to have a team with guys who steal 50 bases because people aren't paying for it. But it's all about wins. That's all that matters."

 

It certainly sounds like he has gone after some defense since it was undervalued, and would do the same thing with speed. Beane is willing to exploit any inconsistency in the market, not just OBP.

 

By the way, here's the link on that-it's about halfway down.

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2004/9/20/23544/2604

[goonys evil twin]

If Jim Hendry served as asst GM for 5 years, then took over the reins of the Cubs after 5 straight losing seasons, then went on a streak of 5 straight seasons of more wins, 5 seasons of 90+ win totals, 4 straight playoff appearances, a couple 100 win seasons, and did it all with a payroll in the bottom half of the league, there wouldn't be a single person on here talking about his faults, and acting as though Andy MacPhail was the real genius and Jim was just smart enough to follow him.

[RynoRules]

Holy cow, man. You are being exceedingly irrational here.

 

Let me make you happy: I think Billy Beane is a great GM, particulalrly considering the relative lack of resources he has at his disposal. I also think that - if Lewis' portrayal is accurate - he is a deeply flawed person. I really don't see how that is unfair or a "backhanded compliment".

 

I think you just can't stand to have him criticized in any way, shape, or form. You need to realize that there is a difference between respecting someone professionaly, but not appreciating them personally. I really don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you.

 

EDIT: And your notion that we all should view Beane as though the book were never written is completely unrealistic and beneath you.

Edited August 17, 2006 by RynoRules

[goonys evil twin]

Holy cow, man. You are being exceedingly irrational here.

 

Let me make you happy: I think Billy Beane is a great GM, particulalrly considering the relative lack of resources he has at his disposal. I also think that - if Lewis' portrayal is accurate - he is a deeply flawed person. I really don't see how that is unfair or a "backhanded compliment".

 

I think you just can't stand to have him criticized in any way, shape, or form. You need to realize that there is a difference between respecting someone professionaly, but not appreciating them personally. I really don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you.

 

I don't understand why people can't just say he's a great GM but always have to find ways to slight him, including claiming that Alderson is the real architect. I don't care if you think he's a jerk. He probably is. I have no opinion on his personality, because I don't know him. But I do know that people simply can't accept the fact that he's great at what he does because he did it a different way than how you're "supposed to".

[RynoRules]

Holy cow, man. You are being exceedingly irrational here.

 

Let me make you happy: I think Billy Beane is a great GM, particulalrly considering the relative lack of resources he has at his disposal. I also think that - if Lewis' portrayal is accurate - he is a deeply flawed person. I really don't see how that is unfair or a "backhanded compliment".

 

I think you just can't stand to have him criticized in any way, shape, or form. You need to realize that there is a difference between respecting someone professionaly, but not appreciating them personally. I really don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you.

 

I don't understand why people can't just say he's a great GM but always have to find ways to slight him, including claiming that Alderson is the real architect. I don't care if you think he's a jerk. He probably is. I have no opinion on his personality, because I don't know him. But I do know that people simply can't accept the fact that he's great at what he does because he did it a different way than how you're "supposed to".

 

I guess there's no point in debating this with you, b/c it is apparent that you think he is untouchable.

 

You can't disconnect him from the book; that's completely unrealistic. he volunteered to have the book written about him and gave Lewis access. If JH allowed a book to be written about him, I might think he is bad guy in addition to my already negative opinion about his professional skills.

 

As for the bolded portion, I think you are correct that there are some people who feel that way; I am not one of them, so I have no idea why you are shouting at the rain like this and making gross generalizations.

[goonys evil twin]

As for the bolded portion, I think you are correct that there are some people who feel that way; I am not one of them, so I have no idea why you are shouting at the rain like this and making gross generalizations.

 

You said Alderson was the real architect, and that Beane only followed along. I don't think I need to defend including you in the group that simply can't give Beane the credit he is due.

 

 

I'm not commenting on how you judge him as a person. I really don't care. Maybe he is a jerk, and if you feel you have enough evidence to make that claim, go right ahead. I don't claim he's an infallible human being. All I'm saying is he's a great GM who did things differently and people just can't stand that fact so they pick at his negatives.

 

I'm commenting on people's insistence on refusing to simply admit that he's a great GM, and/or insisting on qualifying the credit he is due to some "but" statement, including that Alderson was the real architect (even though the team was consistently getting worse and worse in the last 5 years Sandy was there). Sandy did a good job overall as the A's GM. But he does not deserve credit over Beane for what has happened since 1998. He's not the "real architect", he's simply Beane's mentor.

[RynoRules]

As for the bolded portion, I think you are correct that there are some people who feel that way; I am not one of them, so I have no idea why you are shouting at the rain like this and making gross generalizations.

 

You said Alderson was the real architect, and that Beane only followed along. I don't think I need to defend including you in the group that simply can't give Beane the credit he is due.

 

 

I'm not commenting on how you judge him as a person. I really don't care. Maybe he is a jerk, and if you feel you have enough evidence to make that claim, go right ahead. I don't claim he's an infallible human being. All I'm saying is he's a great GM who did things differently and people just can't stand that fact so they pick at his negatives.

 

I'm commenting on people's insistence on refusing to simply admit that he's a great GM, and/or insisting on qualifying the credit he is due to some "but" statement, including that Alderson was the real architect (even though the team was consistently getting worse and worse in the last 5 years Sandy was there). Sandy did a good job overall as the A's GM. But he does not deserve credit over Beane for what has happened since 1998. He's not the "real architect", he's simply Beane's mentor.

 

Fine. Think what you will. This is a circular convo.

 

If you want to believe that I don't give Beane enough credit (apparently your definition of this is that he is infallable professionaly), then go right ahead. Based on the book, I think Alderson is the originator of a philosophy that Beane expanded on and ultimately made succesful. If this isn't enough of a compliment for you, then I really do not know what else to say. I stand by my opinion, and believe it is grounded in the actual source material. if you wish to question the veracity of that source material, well that's another matter.

 

I am really surprised that you take such an absolutist position on this.

[soccer10k]

As for the bolded portion, I think you are correct that there are some people who feel that way; I am not one of them, so I have no idea why you are shouting at the rain like this and making gross generalizations.

 

You said Alderson was the real architect, and that Beane only followed along. I don't think I need to defend including you in the group that simply can't give Beane the credit he is due.

 

 

I'm not commenting on how you judge him as a person. I really don't care. Maybe he is a jerk, and if you feel you have enough evidence to make that claim, go right ahead. I don't claim he's an infallible human being. All I'm saying is he's a great GM who did things differently and people just can't stand that fact so they pick at his negatives.

 

I'm commenting on people's insistence on refusing to simply admit that he's a great GM, and/or insisting on qualifying the credit he is due to some "but" statement, including that Alderson was the real architect (even though the team was consistently getting worse and worse in the last 5 years Sandy was there). Sandy did a good job overall as the A's GM. But he does not deserve credit over Beane for what has happened since 1998. He's not the "real architect", he's simply Beane's mentor.

 

Agreed on the following. Just because somebody comes up with a plan doesn't make them a genius. That person actually has to execute the plan to gain praise. Alderson may have come up with a strategy for the A's teams but Beane was the one who actually executed that strategy and did so extremely effectively.

[RynoRules]

Agreed on the following. Just because somebody comes up with a plan doesn't make them a genius. That person actually has to execute the plan to gain praise. Alderson may have come up with a strategy for the A's teams but Beane was the one who actually executed that strategy and did so extremely effectively.

 

Agreed.

[goonys evil twin]

If you want to believe that I don't give Beane enough credit (apparently your definition of this is that he is infallable professionaly), then go right ahead. Based on the book, I think Alderson is the originator of a philosophy that Beane expanded on and ultimately made succesful. If this isn't enough of a compliment for you, then I really do not know what else to say.

 

I don't believe he's infallible. I do believe that you, and many others, simply can't admit he's a great GM and insist on qualifying his accomplishments with comments that you would not use if it wasn't for the book and the fact that he did it differently than you are supposed to do it. Frankly, I think it's the same thing as saying Albert Pujols is a great baseball player but he still makes outs and errors and really isn't doing anything that others did before him. It's pointless and would only be included by those who have a negative bias against him in the first place. Yes, I just compared Beane's work as GM to Pujols' work as a ballplayer, and I really believe he's as good a GM as Pujols is a ballplayer.

[RynoRules]

If you want to believe that I don't give Beane enough credit (apparently your definition of this is that he is infallable professionaly), then go right ahead. Based on the book, I think Alderson is the originator of a philosophy that Beane expanded on and ultimately made succesful. If this isn't enough of a compliment for you, then I really do not know what else to say.

 

I don't believe he's infallible. I do believe that you, and many others, simply can't admit he's a great GM and insist on qualifying his accomplishments with comments that you would not use if it wasn't for the book and the fact that he did it differently than you are supposed to do it. Frankly, I think it's the same thing as saying Albert Pujols is a great baseball player but he still makes outs and errors and really isn't doing anything that others did before him. It's pointless and would only be included by those who have a negative bias against him in the first place. Yes, I just compared Beane's work as GM to Pujols' work as a ballplayer, and I really believe he's as good a GM as Pujols is a ballplayer.

 

Let me make you happy: I think Billy Beane is a great GM, particulalrly considering the relative lack of resources he has at his disposal.

 

Reading is fundamental.

 

I also think that - if Lewis' portrayal is accurate - he is a deeply flawed person. I really don't see how that is unfair or a "backhanded compliment".

 

In other words, the book is useful to me for two points: 1) That Alderson mentored Beane under a certain philosophy that Beane has expanded on and made succesful; and 2) that Beane is a flawed person. To further clarify, the book does not tell me he is a great GM; I understand that without citing the book, though the text supports this argument.

[goonys evil twin]

If you want to believe that I don't give Beane enough credit (apparently your definition of this is that he is infallable professionaly), then go right ahead. Based on the book, I think Alderson is the originator of a philosophy that Beane expanded on and ultimately made succesful. If this isn't enough of a compliment for you, then I really do not know what else to say.

 

I don't believe he's infallible. I do believe that you, and many others, simply can't admit he's a great GM and insistqualifying his accomplishments with comments that you would not use if it wasn't for the book and the fact that he did it differently than you are supposed to do it. Frankly, I think it's the same thing as saying Albert Pujols is a great baseball player but he still makes outs and errors and really isn't doing anything that others did before him. It's pointless and would only be included by those who have a negative bias against him in the first place. Yes, I just compared Beane's work as GM to Pujols' work as a ballplayer, and I really believe he's as good a GM as Pujols is a ballplayer.

 

Let me make you happy: I think Billy Beane is a great GM, particulalrly considering the relative lack of resources he has at his disposal.

 

Reading is fundamental.

 

Maybe I should have used the word without instead of and. I know you can write that he's great, I just see that it's very difficult for you, and many others, to not qualify that with a bogus claim like Alderson was the real architect.

[Warpticon]

If you want to believe that I don't give Beane enough credit (apparently your definition of this is that he is infallable professionaly), then go right ahead. Based on the book, I think Alderson is the originator of a philosophy that Beane expanded on and ultimately made succesful. If this isn't enough of a compliment for you, then I really do not know what else to say.

 

I don't believe he's infallible. I do believe that you, and many others, simply can't admit he's a great GM and insistqualifying his accomplishments with comments that you would not use if it wasn't for the book and the fact that he did it differently than you are supposed to do it. Frankly, I think it's the same thing as saying Albert Pujols is a great baseball player but he still makes outs and errors and really isn't doing anything that others did before him. It's pointless and would only be included by those who have a negative bias against him in the first place. Yes, I just compared Beane's work as GM to Pujols' work as a ballplayer, and I really believe he's as good a GM as Pujols is a ballplayer.

 

Let me make you happy: I think Billy Beane is a great GM, particulalrly considering the relative lack of resources he has at his disposal.

 

Reading is fundamental.

 

Maybe I should have used the word without instead of and. I know you can write that he's great, I just see that it's very difficult for you, and many others, to not qualify that with a bogus claim like Alderson was the real architect.

 

I see that it's very difficult for you not to be overly absolutist and superlative in your diction. Seriously, goony, this is getting freaking ridiculous. What he said doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with your previous conversations with other people on the same topic, and your insistence on pinning that to him is patently absurd. You're accusing him (and others) of letting the book influence their opinion of Beane's value when you're doing the EXACT SAME THING--letting trends of conversation about Beane color your opinion of the motivation behind his statement. It's ridiculous. Stop it.

[goonys evil twin]

I see that it's very difficult for you not to be overly absolutist and superlative in your diction. Seriously, goony, this is getting freaking ridiculous. What he said doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with your previous conversations with other people on the same topic, and your insistence on pinning that to him is patently absurd. You're accusing him (and others) of letting the book influence their opinion of Beane's value when you're doing the EXACT SAME THING--letting trends of conversation about Beane color your opinion of the motivation behind his statement. It's ridiculous. Stop it.

 

Yes master, whatever you say.

 

 

He claimed Alderson was the real architect. I think that's a weak attempt to take credit away from Beane. And I think it all relates to how people have reacted to the book and the fact that he's done it differently than how you're supposed to do it.

 

I really don't see what's wrong with expressing that opinion.

[RynoRules]

Maybe I should have used the word without instead of and. I know you can write that he's great, I just see that it's very difficult for you, and many others, to not qualify that with a bogus claim like Alderson was the real architect.

 

 

Quote:

 

Agreed on the following. Just because somebody comes up with a plan doesn't make them a genius. That person actually has to execute the plan to gain praise. Alderson may have come up with a strategy for the A's teams but Beane was the one who actually executed that strategy and did so extremely effectively.

 

Ryno Rules wrote:

 

Agreed.

 

 

Based on the book, I think Alderson is the originator of a philosophy that Beane expanded on and ultimately made succesful.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "architect". If you mean that I think Alderson taught Beane the overall philosophy that he know employs, then you are correct. However, I also believe that Beane changed and expounded on that philosophy, ultimately making it succesful.

[goonys evil twin]

I am not sure what you mean by "architect". If you mean that I think Alderson taught Beane the overall philosophy that he know employs, then you are correct. However, I also believe that Beane changed and expounded on that philosophy, ultimately making it succesful.

 

I'm not the originator of the term in this discussion. 10man used it, and you completely agreed with it.

 

I think Beane is clearly the architect and Alderson is simply the professor who taught him.

 

If it wasn't for the book and his methods, people wouldn't feel the need to claim the predecessor is the real architect even though his team was falling apart the last several years under his watch.

 

 

It's like saying that Bill Parcells is the real architect behind Belichek's success. Parcells influenced him. Alderson influenced Beane. But BB and BB are the real architects of their team's success.

[RynoRules]

I am not sure what you mean by "architect". If you mean that I think Alderson taught Beane the overall philosophy that he know employs, then you are correct. However, I also believe that Beane changed and expounded on that philosophy, ultimately making it succesful.

 

I'm not the originator of the term in this discussion. 10man used it, and you completely agreed with it.

 

I think Beane is clearly the architect and Alderson is simply the professor who taught him.

 

If it wasn't for the book and his methods, people wouldn't feel the need to claim the predecessor is the real architect even though his team was falling apart the last several years under his watch.

 

 

It's like saying that Bill Parcells is the real architect behind Belichek's success. Parcells influenced him. Alderson influenced Beane. But BB and BB are the real architects of their team's success.

 

I think we are splitting hairs a bit here, but I understand what you are saying. For purposes of making my point with greater clarity, I withdraw the term "architect" and instead re-state the following:

 

I think Alderson taught Beane the overall philosophy that he now employs...However, I also believe that Beane changed and expounded on that philosophy, ultimately making it succesful.

[goonys evil twin]

I think Alderson taught Beane the overall philosophy that he now employs...However, I also believe that Beane changed and expounded on that philosophy, ultimately making it succesful.

 

I think that is an excellent description of the situation.

 

 

:fencing:

 

:flame:

 

:hammer:

 

:alright:

 

:fingerfight:

[RynoRules]

Look at this - a philospohical discourse that led to an agreement. This has got to be an NSBB first!

 

:)

[goonys evil twin]

Look at this - a philospohical discourse that led to an agreement. This has got to be an NSBB first!

 

:)

 

You're wrong, it's the 2nd or 3rd time at least.

[Andy]

Look at this - a philospohical discourse that led to an agreement. This has got to be an NSBB first!

 

:)

 

You're wrong, it's the 2nd or 3rd time at least.

And Goony's been involved every time. :lol:

[Caryatid]

This thread wasn't predictable or anything...

 

Hilarious.

[Magnetic Curses]

This thread wasn't predictable or anything...

 

Hilarious.

 

what do you expect? you post a stupid article by a casual fan/writer and you get responses, some absurd, some intelligent.

 

you might as well have posted a link to an article by an amateur hyper-religious astronomer claiming that copernicus was an idiot and that the earth, in fact, is the center of the universe while using the "epicycle" argument to back his theory up.

 

also, dinosaurs did not exist, discuss.

[Outshined_One]

also, dinosaurs did not exist, discuss.

 

They still exist today, imo.