Caryatid

says a person who started a thread only to get a rise out of people. Ooooo...I have tasted my own medicine and it is bitter!

I'd bet more people get upset because people still don't understand that Billy Beane isn't a "hero" to most people who subscribe to what is described in the book. People get upset because there is so much misinterpretation that comes up everytime the word "Moneyball" is mentioned it's almost impossible to make a point. That's cool. Regardless of the reason, its still funny.

says a person who started a thread only to get a rise out of people. Yep-proof's in the thread, and your response. Call it an experiment. Not sure if you had a point, there.

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. Its exactly the response I expected, which is why I posted it. The quote was a cursory, fairly benign statement that was meant, at least in part, in jest. I wanted to see how far people would go in overreacting to it. It was good for a laugh. So, you were trolling for a response. Ok, I'm glad we cleared that up. Oh no, the "t" word. May the Gods of the internet strike me down. Actually, I didn't comment in the thread-I wasn't looking for a fight. I actually thought it was a pretty dumb comment, too. But that's all it was-a throwaway comment from a sportswriter who admittedly didn't do any research. I was having fun watching people overreact when their hero was even benignly criticized. There were no malicious intentions, nor was it an attempt to get into some kind of argument. It was all in good fun. Too many people here need to take a xanax-this whole board is about a game, and far too often lately it seems that people are going a little overboard about it. In a season as horrible as this one has been, everybody needs to take a step back and ask themselves why they use their recreational time to watch the Cubs-this is all supposed to be fun. If the team isn't going to make it fun for me, I'm going to make it fun for myself.

If the first post talks about a Baker quote, and you don't want to partake in the discussion, the wise thing to do would be to clicking out of the thread. It takes more time to read the thing, and send a reply, than to simply wander somewhere else. That is my plan from now on...I felt that that someone needed to bring up the redundancy of this thread, however. That's it from me.

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. Its exactly the response I expected, which is why I posted it. The quote was a cursory, fairly benign statement that was meant, at least in part, in jest. I wanted to see how far people would go in overreacting to it. It was good for a laugh.

Well then you just don't read his quotes very much. He said, that was just a young, very young mistake. He routinely talks about young mistakes, failings of youth, rookie mistakes, etc etc. But his veterans just hustle at the wrong time, or were trying to make something happen. It's a pattern, and if you can't spot it, you are purposefully ignoring it. I believe the horse is officially dead-we can all stop beating it... If some people are still trying to claim the horse is not dead, I'm going to stay here until someone puts the horse out of its misery. Well, if that's the case, can someone remind me to not read any quote that even hints that there is a Baker quote in it? Seeing as how people feel the need to bring this same topic up every day, I could use the head's up.

Well then you just don't read his quotes very much. He said, that was just a young, very young mistake. He routinely talks about young mistakes, failings of youth, rookie mistakes, etc etc. But his veterans just hustle at the wrong time, or were trying to make something happen. It's a pattern, and if you can't spot it, you are purposefully ignoring it. I believe the horse is officially dead-we can all stop beating it...

Seeing how there is virtually no quantifiable way to evaluate managers, they are going to get evaluated mostly upon their record. And fact is, Baker's record as a manager is pretty good. Hall of Fame good? Who knows. But people need to understand that simply because he doesn't adhere to the baseball philosophies associated with this board does not mean he cannot (or should not) get consideration for the Hall. I don't think he will get in because he could never win in the playoffs (which is where managers truly show their abilities), but I doubt that "pitcher abuse" or "distaste for walks" will be cited by the majority of voters when they decide not to let him in. Face it-the guy won a lot of games as a manager. Who was responsible for those wins (cough...Bonds...cough) will be forgotten by the voters. I don't mind that they consider him simply based upon his W-L record, but I'm fairly certain when all is said and done he will fall firmly in the "no" column.

No one's going to say "We picked up a guy today who is arguably the worst offensive player in the history of the game-World Series, here we come!"

Again, I can't provide any sort of numerical backing just because it'd take a ton of time - but there's no way they'd only save "a run every three or four games". On top of runs prevented, what about helping keep a pitchers pitch count low due to them turning the DP, making exceptional plays, etc? I think you can't provide numerical backing, because numerical backing for that position doesn't exist. Just like you can't provide numerical evidence of speed's influence on a pitchers missed location, range in CF saving doubles and triples, etc. Doesn't mean it's not important, just not quantifiable. You can actually use "range factor" in quantifying range. Of course its important, but not nearly as important as offense, and no anectdotal evidence can change that.

Respectfully disagree - the Cubs problem is not a general lack of offense, but lack of offense from the corner positions. Murton and Jones are both 4th OF in my opinion, Ramirez had a terrible first half, and Lee has been disabled for most of the season. The Cubs were 5th in baseball in defensive efficiency before trading for Izturis, thus his defense can only improve them marginally. Furthermore, regardless of what the team "can" spend, they will only spend somewhere in the $100 million range. As such, you can't waste $4 on a defensive player who provided minimal offense when you've already got that same player on the roster (Perez). Perez's defense is roughly equivalent to Izturis', as is his offense (.650 OPS). You simply can't have two of the worst offensive players in baseball occupying the same roster because they might happen to save a run with their defense every third or fourth game. Furthermore, when a team is last in the league in runs scored by over 100 runs, I would say the team's problem is a lack of offense in total, not just from the corner positions. Over 100 runs from the next team? It's actually 14 runs-I understand your point though (although I still don't understand how we're 5th in defensive efficiency watching this team play defense everyday (especially the OF and catcher and the middle infield earlier in the season, and then see the differences when watching other teams, but that has been beaten to death :D). I happen to think that Izturis will surprise some people offensively next season, but for that we will have to wait and see. Yeah-there was a little hyperbole in there. Exaggeration for effect.

Sarcasm or not, I'm in the camp of in any sport, defense wins championships. Cliches don't win championships. It makes for a cute little point on the championship video, but in baseball, defense makes very little difference. If you'll look at defensive efficiency, fielding percentage, etc., you'll see that very few playoff teams, World Series teams, or World Series champions have been at or near the top in defense. Some have, but not nearly enough to draw some kind of correlation. It's not a cliche just because it's repeated. Maybe it's repeated because professional sports people, with experience, generally believe it. Why else would you hear it so often? edit: Again, I'd like to clarify that when I refer to defense I'm specifically referring to 'up the middle defense'; especially range in CF, the middle IF's ability to turn a DP, and the C's ability to call a game and manage a pitchers emotions. You're right: its not a cliche because its repeated. Its a cliche because it doesn't have any merit other than something people like to say because it sounds nice and team oriented. In fact, in baseball, defense means so much less than offense, especially when a player is one of the worst in baseball offensively, as are both Izturis and Perez.

Again, I can't provide any sort of numerical backing just because it'd take a ton of time - but there's no way they'd only save "a run every three or four games". On top of runs prevented, what about helping keep a pitchers pitch count low due to them turning the DP, making exceptional plays, etc? I think you can't provide numerical backing, because numerical backing for that position doesn't exist.

Sarcasm or not, I'm in the camp of in any sport, defense wins championships. Cliches don't win championships. It makes for a cute little point on the championship video, but in baseball, defense makes very little difference. If you'll look at defensive efficiency, fielding percentage, etc., you'll see that very few playoff teams, World Series teams, or World Series champions have been at or near the top in defense. Some have, but not nearly enough to draw some kind of correlation.