RynoRules

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

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 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 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. Reading is fundamental. 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.

Agreed.

I'm trying to be nice. I'm to the point where I'm sick of bashing this team and ready to find another way to spend my time. This negative crap is getting me in too bad of a mood too often. Here here. I don't see the point in bashing Mabry. He's been starting a lot of the time and shouldn't be, but that isn't his fault. I don't see how that is a defense of Mabry. The guy has been brutal all year, starting or not. He had a sub 600 OPS for a while. Just because he's started more than expected doesn't change the fact that he's been awful, a terrible signing and a waste of roster space. I think he has value if utilized correctly (i.e., as pinch hitter), but that Dusty hasn't done that. Its not really a defense of Mabry so much as its a criticism of Dusty.

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.

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.

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.

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'm trying to be nice. I'm to the point where I'm sick of bashing this team and ready to find another way to spend my time. This negative crap is getting me in too bad of a mood too often. Here here. I don't see the point in bashing Mabry. He's been starting a lot of the time and shouldn't be, but that isn't his fault.

Neifi for Verlander. That's a fair deal. :^o

I don't think he's waffling - his personal opinion (no matter how much we disgaree with it) has always been that Baker should be brought back, but he always qualified that opinion by stating that all signs point to him hitting the road (today's column is no exception). I really don't see the big deal here, other than Hendry's comments sure make it sound like Baker is as good as gone, which is something to be happy about, IMO.

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.

Ugh. We could wind up seeing that mid-80's FB hitting that short LF porch at the Juice Box several times tonight. Not agood place to give him his first ML action, IMO.

What other year were we last in the league? Last year we were much closer to the middle then to last. They were last in walks, but 11th in OBP (out of 16 NL teams) thanks to ranking 3rd in AVG (2nd in SLG). They were .005 away from last place, but .009 away from the midpoint. So, while they were closer to the middle in terms of rank, they were actually closer to last in terms of the actual number. Combined over the past two years they probably will have the worst total OBP. The lack of walks is, by far, the single greatest contributor to the poor offensive performance during the Dusty Baker era. They've had good batting averages and bad averages. They've hit well with RISP and poorly with RISP. They've hit for lots of power and no power. But they've consistently been at or near the bottom of the barrell in the NL in the walks department (14th, 14th, 16th, 16th). It's a huge problem, they refuse to admit it and fix it, and far too many fans and experts accept that as perfectly OK since the walk just isn't the manly thing to do. perfectly put. everyone needs to read this post. Agreed.

Someone educate me on this O'Malley guy, please.

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.

Uh-oh, he's "clutch": He'll be here soon. In response to TT"s post, I don't think surrounding him with a platoon of avg. OFers (or in Restovich's case, perhaps below avg.) is the protection I am looking for, even if you do drop him to 7th. I'd like to see a proven everyday corner OFer hitting in front of him in the 6 hole, or at least Barrett. I still think that if they shore up the pitching issues, one impact bat could make a huge difference in this lineup.

Statistically speaking, is a "good" (better than avg.) hitter more likely to continue to produce as he advances than a "good" pitcher? I would think so. If so, jjgman has a point.

Pie needs another year at AAA. No way is he ready for the bigs yet. Why do you think that Pie has hit his stride at AAA, and has been hitting very well for the better part of 2 months. He's shown he's not overmatched there and is starting to thrive. It wouldn't hurt his development to start in Iowa in '07, but in the same way he won't be damaged by starting and hitting near the bottom of the order in the bigs. I wouldn't bring Pie up to a Cubs team that is middling or worse like this one. I don't want to put pressure on him to produce immediately. If you put him in an OF populated by Murton and Jones and make no other significant changes, then he is under pressure to put up nos. right away. On the other hand, if we sign / trade for impact guys to "protect" him and allowhim to hit in the lower-third of the order, I wouldn't object to bringing him up.

The five man rotation is a huge factor in starters pitching fewer innings. Blame LA for that, IIRC. They went to a five-man rotation not because they were trying to eliminate injuries, but because they had 5 good starters and wanted all 5 in the rotation. There's been significant research that shows that starters in a 4-man rotation are not any more likely to be injured than those in a 5-man. I think Boone in Cincinnati was the last manager to try a 4-man rotation, but he left starters in to pitch 130-plus pitches. Earl Weaver used to only carry 10 pitchers on the roster, and he frequently went with just 9. Do you have a source on that?

That's a good point. Specialization of relievers. Its why I am training my son to throw left-handed. Even if he's mediocre, he could get, say, a two year deal worth 5 mill. :wink:

I buy the argument re injured pitchers and their inability to recover enough to be injured a second or third time, but disagree with: 1) The notion that guys feared strike outs more in that era and therefore swung earlier in the count (see Outshined's post above); 2) That OBP has been "in vogue" for as long as you contend. As near as I can recall, the mid-90s Yankees were one of the first teams to take the issue seriously, but for whatever reason, the majority of ML teams have failed to follow suit. 3) I admited that I listed random names because those are the ones I can recall off-hand; that's why I chose two HOFers (Spahn and Sutton) and two relatively succesful but middling pitchers (Hooton and Welch), along with Reuschel, as a sample. I don't see how that changes my point though, since there are dozens of other examples out there. By comparison (and I admit to not having done extensive research), I would bet there are fewer examples over the last 15 years of guys who have consistently (7-10 years) made 30 or more starts and pitched 200-plus innings.

Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power. I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before. I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his. I would also submit that pitchers have to work much harder to get guys out now than they did in the 70's and points previous. Your average MLB hitter is stronger and quicker at the plate than your average 1975 era hitter. Agreed, as OBP has become more important in the mind of some organizations, the amount of pitches per plate appearance has probably risen over the years. Also with the advent of the 5 man rotation and the amount of money invested in these guys they don't throw as much as they used to. In the past, and with fewer teams in the league, most pitchers threw a lot more innings in the minors where they either persevered or flamed out, so their probably were a lot more guys with injuries, they were just out of baseball before they ever made it to the bigs. With expansion and the dilution of pitchers you are seeing guys in majors that probably would have never made it in years past. This could be true. I don't buy the OBP argument. OBP only came into vogue in the last few years, but this injury problem has been going on for far longer than that. Moreover, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this bd., the majority of teams still do not value patience at the plate as much as they do aggressive hitting.