Jump to content
North Side Baseball
Posted
I don't find the joke funny because it made no sense and it had sounds of a bitter old man ranting about nothing. I suppose that in itself is funny but not in the way LaRussa intended.
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Why do people get so mad at this book?

 

because for the dinosaurs think this book kind of proves that everything they've always believed isn't really true

 

Not to mention all the dinosaurs are afraid they're gonna lose their jobs to one or two guys with a computer so instead of adopting the philosophies and adapting their scouting to these theories they fight tooth and nail to disprove it.

Posted

The dinosaurs are wondering why they're dinosaurs when they occupy and witness the reality of what the numbers are collected in, and in fact know the people those numbers are collected on on a personal level. They help train those people, they talk and give advice to those people, and they see their habits and eccentricities on some kind of more substantial basis than a vast majority of the population, who mostly just have numbers.

 

That's not even going into the fact that most of those stupid dinosaurs were in on baseball statistics long before your average fan started categorizing them as dinosaurs. Being a numbers analyst is a dime a dozen skill now in baseball, and next (already happening really) is more research to quantify the physical attributes and traits of athletes (quantify scouting). Even then, there's a million different things that can come together to be a good and useful player and then a winning roster.

 

There's always going to be people who know the numbers and still like to use the 'ol c and b set in there.

Posted
I'm still curious as to what "rise" you think he's mocking so well.

 

And your posts aren't invisible, unfortunately.

 

No need to be obtuse. He was obviously taking a shot at the embracing of baseball statistics by the mainstream, which was (whether anyone will admit it in an argument or not) a product of MoneyBall's shockwave in baseball culture. He did this by telling the reporter he's not a MoneyBall fan because something something multiply it by [expletive].

Posted
knocking "moneyball concepts" is stupid because it's all about exploiting market inefficiencies. like OBP wasn't valued enough so beane tried to exploit that, and then when the rest of the league caught up he tried to exploit defense not being valued enough. anyone who thinks it's bad to be getting more than market value out of a player is a moron who deserves to be ridiculed.
Posted
As much as OBP and now defense as far as what Beane exploits, throughout the last 10 years, he still exploits the value of finesse pitchers yet nothing is mentioned of it.
Posted
I'm still curious as to what "rise" you think he's mocking so well.

 

And your posts aren't invisible, unfortunately.

 

No need to be obtuse. He was obviously taking a shot at the embracing of baseball statistics by the mainstream, which was (whether anyone will admit it in an argument or not) a product of MoneyBall's shockwave in baseball culture. He did this by telling the reporter he's not a MoneyBall fan because something something multiply it by [expletive].

 

Then he was indeed just sounding like an idiot.

Posted

"The field that’s closest to the dugout and that’s where Lance plays" was mildly amusing on its surface.

 

The rest of it was amusing in a "we're laughing at you, not with you" sort of way. Coming off sounding smart by ripping Moneyball is an uphill climb. LaRussa fell well short of the summit.

Posted
knocking "moneyball concepts" is stupid because it's all about exploiting market inefficiencies. like OBP wasn't valued enough so beane tried to exploit that, and then when the rest of the league caught up he tried to exploit defense not being valued enough. anyone who thinks it's bad to be getting more than market value out of a player is a moron who deserves to be ridiculed.

 

Yep then it just faded into an impactless, controversy free sunset, forever forgotten. Suuuunshine lollipops rainbows smiley days or sumpin.

 

Doesn't the fact that you guys are so offended for MoneyBall kind of tell you that this book had an impact on the way people perceive and think about and through the sport? Is it against some rule to mock the sheer number of numbers that came post-MoneyBall, which is the root of the joke? What's the big deal here?

Posted
knocking "moneyball concepts" is stupid because it's all about exploiting market inefficiencies. like OBP wasn't valued enough so beane tried to exploit that, and then when the rest of the league caught up he tried to exploit defense not being valued enough. anyone who thinks it's bad to be getting more than market value out of a player is a moron who deserves to be ridiculed.

 

Yep then it just faded into an impactless, controversy free sunset, forever forgotten. Suuuunshine lollipops rainbows smiley days or sumpin.

 

Doesn't the fact that you guys are so offended for MoneyBall kind of tell you that this book had an impact on the way people perceive and think about and through the sport? Is it against some rule to mock the sheer number of numbers that came post-MoneyBall, which is the root of the joke? What's the big deal here?

 

I'm not sure what this means. And frankly, the argument should have ended after TT's post. The book is about taking advantage of market inefficiencies; baseball was just an interesting vehicle. But it's been misconstrued by a bunch of folks for reasons I can't fully understand (though some reasons, like willful ignorance, are obvious).

 

People that enjoyed moneyball and support the SABR movement (not necessarily the same populations) aren't offended. More often they feel, I don't know, annoyed at the pervasive misunderstanding. I think largely bc its not a difficult concept, but those that want to hate 'new' stats seem so intent on maintaining their ignorance.

Posted

Doesn't the fact that you guys are so offended for MoneyBall kind of tell you that this book had an impact on the way people perceive and think about and through the sport? Is it against some rule to mock the sheer number of numbers that came post-MoneyBall, which is the root of the joke? What's the big deal here?

 

I'm just offended by your sense of humor if you think what he said was funny or clever at all.

Posted

Doesn't the fact that you guys are so offended for MoneyBall kind of tell you that this book had an impact on the way people perceive and think about and through the sport? Is it against some rule to mock the sheer number of numbers that came post-MoneyBall, which is the root of the joke? What's the big deal here?

 

I'm just offended by your sense of humor if you think what he said was funny or clever at all.

 

That's fine. Different strokes...I imagine a dry delivery, which to me b

Hits the spot.

Posted
I'm not sure what this means. And frankly, the argument should have ended after TT's post. The book is about taking advantage of market inefficiencies; baseball was just an interesting vehicle. But it's been misconstrued by a bunch of folks for reasons I can't fully understand (though some reasons, like willful ignorance, are obvious).

 

People that enjoyed moneyball and support the SABR movement (not necessarily the same populations) aren't offended. More often they feel, I don't know, annoyed at the pervasive misunderstanding. I think largely bc its not a difficult concept, but those that want to hate 'new' stats seem so intent on maintaining their ignorance.

 

While I'm very sure that guys like Joe Morgan completely missed the point, Tony LaRussa is not some idiot. In fact, LaRussa, and the guys like him in the sport, was probably in on baseball numbers long before it was cool. The bitterness in the joke probably comes from actually seeing the impact the book had on personnel and FOs first hand. Not to mention that post-MoneyBall guys who spent decades thriving in baseball were suddenly idiots, ignoramuses, and dinosaurs according to the sudden surge of people who "got it" because they read a book and can recite "MoneyBall isn't about statistics, but rather using statistics to detect market inefficiencies" when faced with the *craaaazy, waaaaacky* idea that that book had an impact upon the culture of the game itself.

 

Just looking at this from the perspective of a really old school baseball guy...hell you don't even have to be *that* old school for this to irk...Why wouldn't some people be pissed at something that opened up the door for them being labeled inefficient, antiquated idiots? Why wouldn't they be pissed that FO and GM jobs that might have gone to them with a few breaks to kids out of Ivy League business schools (some like Mark Shapiro and Paul DePodesta who admitted to having little clue about the game before they got in it)?

 

Anyway, this is something that I'll never be able to cover completely on a message board in a few posts. You can write a whole book on the impact of MoneyBall on MLB, and why people feel the way they do about the book one way or another. There's logic to both sides, which is why we're seeing the smartest and best franchises blending both sides as well as the big debates of last decade (that I guess continue to this day). Also, I'll throw in that one of the many reasons the book got attacked (besides the fact that it was 10, 15, 20+ years behind what some teams like the Yankees and A's were doing) was that it could be viewed as an attack on the humanity in something as human as sport. Iunno I'm just going to stop rambling and let this post take the incoming beating and let the whole "KKvG hates stats" thing perpetuate. I just think the idea that Tony LaRussa doesn't get MoneyBall just because he dare speak ill is just laughable...Oh, and the joke was funny.

Posted
Stop saying "MoneyBall."

 

MoneyBall MoneyBall MoneyBall

 

Stop pretending the book floated off to the land of forgotten books that made no kind of impact on it's subject (vehicle, topic, whatever you want to call it).

 

Oh, and what else should I call it?

Posted

http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1158120691l/1301.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

 

 

Stop pretending the book floated off to the land of forgotten books that made no kind of impact on it's subject (vehicle, topic, whatever you want to call it).

 

This is another thing that is not a thing that exists.

 

You're sometimes a little crazy.

 

Just a pinch.

Posted

On the topic of [expletive] La Russa says...

 

“Allen Craig has a pet tortoise, and my understanding is that the squirrel was the tortoise’s pass to the game, and they’re supposed to be here tomorrow together, and I don’t know if the tortoise took a walk and the squirrel panicked,” La Russa joked. “I don’t know the rest of that story, but I think that the squirrel is attached to Craig’s tortoise, and I’m expecting them to be here tomorrow. Maybe they have a suite so they won’t be running on the field. I’ve never met it. I actually want to meet the tortoise. The squirrel, too.”

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...