The Real Moneyball?

[KW34]

I realize that the Tejada story revolves around B12, but one cannot help but notice the contingent of one-time Oakland A's that have been involved in the headlines regarding steroids. This begs the question of whether their was something else in the Moneyball philosophy besides taking advantage of an inefficient market.

 

This is pure speculation on my part, but think about it. Take a player who knows the game, plays the right way, gets the most out of his ability, is a gamer (i.e. whatever cliche you choose) but just doesn't have the talent level of his peers. Now if you give this player some medical help that improves his ability you've really got something. It's tough to take a 5 tool athlete and make him a baseball player. What if you could take a baseball player and improve his 5 tools? Really all it would take would be a seedy doctor, someone in or around the organization who advocated it (could be anyone), and a "don't ask, don't tell" organizational-philosophy. Again, not saying this is the case but it does make me wonder.

[Bull]

I realize that the Tejada story revolves around B12, but one cannot help but notice the contingent of one-time Oakland A's that have been involved in the headlines regarding steroids. This begs the question of whether their was something else in the Moneyball philosophy besides taking advantage of an inefficient market.

 

This is pure speculation on my part, but think about it. Take a player who knows the game, plays the right way, gets the most out of his ability, is a gamer (i.e. whatever cliche you choose) but just doesn't have the talent level of his peers. Now if you give this player some medical help that improves his ability you've really got something. It's tough to take a 5 tool athlete and make him a baseball player. What if you could take a baseball player and improve his 5 tools? Really all it would take would be a seedy doctor, someone in or around the organization who advocated it (could be anyone), and a "don't ask, don't tell" organizational-philosophy. Again, not saying this is the case but it does make me wonder.

 

hmm...

 

hmm....

 

hmm.....

 

No

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

i don't see how steroids improve all of the 5 tools: run, throw, field, hit, hit for power.

 

hit for power...sure. the rest - the impact of using roids would be minimal.

[CubinNY]

I realize that the Tejada story revolves around B12, but one cannot help but notice the contingent of one-time Oakland A's that have been involved in the headlines regarding steroids. This begs the question of whether their was something else in the Moneyball philosophy besides taking advantage of an inefficient market.

 

This is pure speculation on my part, but think about it. Take a player who knows the game, plays the right way, gets the most out of his ability, is a gamer (i.e. whatever cliche you choose) but just doesn't have the talent level of his peers. Now if you give this player some medical help that improves his ability you've really got something. It's tough to take a 5 tool athlete and make him a baseball player. What if you could take a baseball player and improve his 5 tools? Really all it would take would be a seedy doctor, someone in or around the organization who advocated it (could be anyone), and a "don't ask, don't tell" organizational-philosophy. Again, not saying this is the case but it does make me wonder.

 

I think you raise some good questions. But IMO this is done outside of baseball. I don't think the owners cared but I don't think they were complicit. I think they can be held accountable through neglagence rather than anything overt.

 

I also think too much is made of steriods (at least in baseball). I think their main benefit to baseball players is recovery time and muscle plasticity much more so then helping a medicore player become a good player or a good player a great one.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I realize that the Tejada story revolves around B12, but one cannot help but notice the contingent of one-time Oakland A's that have been involved in the headlines regarding steroids. This begs the question of whether their was something else in the Moneyball philosophy besides taking advantage of an inefficient market.

 

This is pure speculation on my part, but think about it. Take a player who knows the game, plays the right way, gets the most out of his ability, is a gamer (i.e. whatever cliche you choose) but just doesn't have the talent level of his peers. Now if you give this player some medical help that improves his ability you've really got something. It's tough to take a 5 tool athlete and make him a baseball player. What if you could take a baseball player and improve his 5 tools? Really all it would take would be a seedy doctor, someone in or around the organization who advocated it (could be anyone), and a "don't ask, don't tell" organizational-philosophy. Again, not saying this is the case but it does make me wonder.

 

No...I think you're really reaching here. Realllly....reaching.

[KW34]

I think you raise some good questions. But IMO this is done outside of baseball. I don't think the owners cared but I don't think they were complicit. I think they can be held accountable through neglagence rather than anything overt.

 

I also think too much is made of steriods (at least in baseball). I think their main benefit to baseball players is recovery time and muscle plasticity much more so then helping a medicore player become a good player or a good player a great one.

 

I tend to agree with you on both counts. I do think, however, that ownership needs to take some responsibility.

[KW34]

No...I think you're really reaching here. Realllly....reaching.

 

Wow, I never looked at it that way. Great argument. :wink:

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Giambi and Tejada are the only ones that have been brought up right? They are the most talented to begin with, not the one's who necessarily need an extra boost(although every bit counts). If what you're saying were true, wouldn't we be seeing Scott Hatteberg and Marco Scutaro test positive?

[JC]

Giambi and Tejada are the only ones that have been brought up right?

 

Big Mac?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Giambi and Tejada are the only ones that have been brought up right?

 

Big Mac?

 

That's pre-Beane and pre-"Moneyball" though, isn't it?

[KW34]

i don't see how steroids improve all of the 5 tools: run, throw, field, hit, hit for power.

 

hit for power...sure. the rest - the impact of using roids would be minimal.

 

Steriods can make one recover faster, enabling one to become stronger and faster (run, hit for power). Tangentially this would impact the others as well - the faster you are the more balls you can get to (field), the stronger you are the harder you can hit the ball so more grounders get through the infield (hit)...throw, well, I've really got nothing on throw.

 

General argument is as follows:

 

premise #1: Steriods make you a better baseball player.

premise #2: Average baseball players are cheaper in the marketplace.

 

conclusion: Average baseball players given steroids would then be both better and cheaper.

 

It seems you are arguing premise #1 which is fine. Then I might ask why the uproar over steroids to begin with?

[JC]

Giambi and Tejada are the only ones that have been brought up right?

 

Big Mac?

 

That's pre-Beane and pre-"Moneyball" though, isn't it?

 

I thought Beane was in on the trade to St. Louis, but I could easily be wrong.

[KW34]

Giambi and Tejada are the only ones that have been brought up right?

 

Big Mac?

 

That's pre-Beane and pre-"Moneyball" though, isn't it?

 

Pre-Beane, yes, although Beane learned his chops from Alderson who was there at the time.

[KW34]

As an aside, there was an article in the New Yorker about Rickey Henderson playing independent ball. He was asked if he knew about steroid use. His response [paraphrasing - can't recall exact words]:

 

"No man, I wish they would've told me. Could you imagine Rickey on steroids? Look out!"

 

:D

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Giambi and Tejada are the only ones that have been brought up right?

 

Big Mac?

 

That's pre-Beane and pre-"Moneyball" though, isn't it?

 

I thought Beane was in on the trade to St. Louis, but I could easily be wrong.

 

Hmmm, either way though it's another example of the top talent being linked to steroids, and not the "gamers that don't have enough talent".

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

i don't see how steroids improve all of the 5 tools: run, throw, field, hit, hit for power.

 

hit for power...sure. the rest - the impact of using roids would be minimal.

 

Steriods can make one recover faster, enabling one to become stronger and faster (run, hit for power). Tangentially this would impact the others as well - the faster you are the more balls you can get to (field), the stronger you are the harder you can hit the ball so more grounders get through the infield (hit)...throw, well, I've really got nothing on throw.

 

General argument is as follows:

 

premise #1: Steriods make you a better baseball player.

premise #2: Average baseball players are cheaper in the marketplace.

 

conclusion: Average baseball players given steroids would then be both better and cheaper.

 

It seems you are arguing premise #1 which is fine. Then I might ask why the uproar over steroids to begin with?

 

Roids give the an edge, but don't completely redefine a player's game/natural abilities. if matt murton took roids, he wouldn't turn into a speed demon with a canon arm. you can't defy genetics. there are natural limits placed on the effectiveness of steroids. fielding takes a lot more than footspeed (which is minimally effected by roids...fractions of a second on a 40 yard dash time). instinct and talent don't come from a pill or an injection.

 

there are many players with the same/similar abilities, and any little advantage will cost someone their job...and the many years of effort to get their spot in the show. i don't view steroids as cheating the fans, rather as cheating the players who play it clean. there are only so many big league roster spots and the guys who play it clean get shafted.

[UMFan83]

Quick, someone test Nick Swisher and Mark Teahan

[NewUserName]

I wonder how we would feel as Cub fans if we won the World Series next season and than found out 2 years down the line that Lee and Aram were juicing. (just making up a story not accussing) Or someone from another orginization accussed them of using. We would probably defend them to the end. I think it is kind of funny how fan loyalty clouds reasonable debate on this subject.

 

Though I highly doubt that Billy Beane is promoting steroid abuse. I do believe that alot of people in baseball for years have turned a blind eye to what has been pretty obvious to even casual fans. I personnally believed back in 98 that both Sammy and Mac were on steroids and I am sure that alot of other people in baseball believed it. Did they do anything about it, no. So I would say that their lack of trying to stop it untill it was forced on them by the Balco thing is almost as bad as actually promoting use among your own players.

 

I also think that the problem will not go away until teams have to forfeit games because someone on their team is juicing. Until teams have to pay a serious price and teammates have a good reason to help stop teammates that are using it will remain a problem.

 

One last thing. Dont you guys think it is a complete joke that the NFL "seems" to have their problem under control. Riiigght