Jump to content

Bean overrated?


Flying_Mollusk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ive always thought for years that the Moneyball approach was way overrated and that its only validation has been the As but thats because of Hudson, Mulder, Zito. Whether those three were a result of the moneyball approach is debateable. Now perhaps is when Beane and company truly get tested. Good read:

 

A's pitchers: Posted 12:12 p.m. ET, Tuesday, Feb. 22

Eric Karabell

 

Is it me, or does everyone just assume Billy Beane is a genius? OK, there was a book about how he views stats. Great. I view stats. You view stats. Heck, the Devil Rays probably view stats. Beane knows his stuff, but why is he considered smarter than everyone else? I don't mean to rip on Beane or the Athletics, but I think we're seeing in this offseason that players' values are getting wrongly adjusted/inflated because they have become an Oakland pitcher.

 

This past offseason, the A's dumped two thirds of the vaunted Big Three pitchers off, getting back some young pitchers that may or may not be as good as we think. A year ago, Danny Haren looked like a fine prospect. But BECAUSE the A's traded for him, now Haren has become a better pitcher, a supposed lock for stardom? Dan Meyer? Fine prospect back with Atlanta, but only 61 innings above Double-A, so let's hold off on anointing him. Juan Cruz? C'mon, hasn't everyone taken a shot on him? The A's have had a nice stretch of winning games and sending pitching prospects to the majors, but it still didn't result in a World Series. Isn't it possible the Hudson-Zito-Mulder run was not because of the A's knowing more than everyone else, but because they just happened to have three good pitchers?

 

Rich Harden is the best example of this. True, his minor league stats do give the impression he's a future star, and I do think he gets there eventually. He has nasty stuff that he still has trouble controlling, but he can throw 97 MPH consistently. He has a great strikeout rate, and he did show improvement after the break last season, slicing that ERA down to the 3 range. But if Harden was on the Brewers right now, would he be regarded the way he is now? It's because he's an Athletic that baseball observers - fantasy and not - just assume he'll break on through and become an ace, just like the pitchers before him. Frankly, his second half projects as a harbinger of nice things, but there are those who worry that he's thrown way too many pitches and has been overworked, and a shoulder injury might be coming soon. I ranked him 21st among starters in January rankings, but I think that's too high. If push comes to shove, I would take Beckett, Clemens and Maddux first.

 

It's smarter to judge Harden and these other pitchers on accomplishments and expected performance rather than on the reputation of a Moneyball GM and former A's pitchers. I love Hudson this season, even though he's out of Oakland, maybe because he is. Mulder scares me a bit, even though he's in St. Louis. The guy got pounded after the break last year, and for a guy who was dominant the year before, that normally means there's a hidden injury. But don't assume that Oakland dealt Mulder because they knew something that other teams didn't. If any of the Big Three should have been moved, it wouldn't have been those guys, it would have been Barry Zito. Check out his progression the last three seasons. And he's still an Athletic, and also no lock to bounce back to 20-win status.

 

The Cardinals were desperate for pitching in the playoffs, what with Chris Carpenter out. But still Haren didn't crack the rotation; he was a long reliever who barely pitched. His minor league numbers have been OK, but look at his 21 starts with Memphis last season. It was the first time his strikeout rate became notable (150 Ks, 128 innings), but Haren was also very hittable, a recurring theme for him. He allowed 19 homers, and more hits than innings, making for a high ERA of 4.15. In 14 starts with the Cardinals in 2003, he looked overmatched, extremely hittable (84 hits, 73 innings), high WHIP (1.46). Bottom line is, a year ago Haren was not considered special, not a top prospect, he was considered a future fourth or fifth starter, maybe even a middle man. But because the A's dealt for him, people think he can win 15 games. He could, I suppose, but I don't think that for now. I think I see John Lackey. Like Lackey, I think Haren could be a special pitcher, but my point is we cannot assume that's the case.

 

The A's could be in for a fall this season, so be careful not to overrate their players just because they are their players. Not only can't we be sure Zito will bounce back, but Harden needs to harness that stuff. Haren might just be an innings eater, and Adrian Beltre can't wait to face him five times this year. Octavio Dotel is being discussed in trade talks not only because the A's have Huston Street seemingly ready, but because the A's realize what the Mets and Astros have learned, that just because you're a hard thrower doesn't mean you can close games. Joe Blanton, only two years out of college, and a focus of Moneyball, has been moved up the system very quickly, but the A's need him in the rotation. I think he's as good as Harden, and not just because it's the A's, because he's a good pitcher.

 

I could be wrong. But so could Beane.

 

http://games.espn.go.com/cgi/flb/edge/story?id=1996543

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest Moneyball

I assume Eric Karabell is a member of "The Club". For those who have read the afterword in Moneyball.

 

:plain

 

I guess yes, Beane and his players are a bit overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you F_M ! Wow thats two in a row where we agree. Anyways, I feel that the A's success is attributed to drafting good players. Good scouting, and just making the right move. I feel that "moneyball" is a bit overrated. How many World Series rings has it brought them. They may field a nice starting 9 but with no depth they wind up either just missing the playoffs or making a first round exit. Mulder, Zito, Hudson I dont know any team that cant win with those three pitching every five days. The true test with "moneyball" is now. As for Beane, you cant deny his eye for talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of three ESPN pieces yesterday slamming Beane and the A's.

 

Haren-Meyer-Cruz, yes, they are top flight prospects. Were so well before Oakland grabbed them. Karabell and others' recent turn on them represents the writers' animosity for the A's and prospects in general. It's one thing to be a prospect, it's another thing to be making the jump to the majors where the real All-Stars play and the journalist All-Stars of fading stars and scrapy veterans whose skills have deteriorated. Its the same view that keeps talented rookies off All-Star teams, from receiving major awards or press until they've 'fully established' themselves. As if a successful rookie season could be a fluke, but a career year by a veteran is worth another 5 years as the 25th man on the bench regardless of his skills.

 

Is it the pitching that wins in a short series? No, their #1 and #2s are overmatched. Do they have the talent and make-up as strikeout pitchers to dominate a game against stellar competition? Yes. How soon? Maybe not this year, but soon enough.

 

And it's not as if their pitchers will have to be great. The A's have a good defense and offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you F_M ! Wow thats two in a row where we agree. Anyways, I feel that the A's success is attributed to drafting good players. Good scouting, and just making the right move. I feel that "moneyball" is a bit overrated. How many World Series rings has it brought them. They may field a nice starting 9 but with no depth they wind up either just missing the playoffs or making a first round exit. Mulder, Zito, Hudson I dont know any team that cant win with those three pitching every five days. The true test with "moneyball" is now. As for Beane, you cant deny his eye for talent.

692605[/snapback]

 

but thats all about Moneyball

 

is it overrated? Sure, because thats all everyone talks about.

 

Even though I cant stand the fact that Beane doesnt watch his team play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's overrated because everyone talks about him.

 

His drafting techniques are pretty damn good, and he can get a winner out of very little money. But he isn't the only GM that can do that, I can think of a couple others that can win with a small payroll (Florida, Minnesota) that don't get as much attention. However because he does it differently everyone talks about him. Is he among the best? Yes. Is he the best? No. Not being able to win the World Series, and then making up excuses for it, is not the mark of the best GM in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's overrated because everyone talks about him.

 

His drafting techniques are pretty damn good, and he can get a winner out of very little money. But he isn't the only GM that can do that, I can think of a couple others that can win with a small payroll (Florida, Minnesota) that don't get as much attention. However because he does it differently everyone talks about him. Is he among the best? Yes. Is he the best? No. Not being able to win the World Series, and then making up excuses for it, is not the mark of the best GM in the game.

693528[/snapback]

 

 

beane is overrated for the simple fact that he had three absolute horses, he had a healthy giambi and tejada with chavez for a hell of a punch in the middle and still failed to win a playoff series.

 

 

at least minnesota in their cries of poverty have accomplished that recently. if i'm not mistaken.

 

 

so until beane wins something that means anything he is nothing more than this overrated dood that toots his own horn regarding statistics alone.

 

 

big deal, i could do that in my sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Beane does is working so you can't knock him for it

693359[/snapback]

how is it working?

Beane has had NOTHING to do with the success of the A's. There are three reasons for the A's success: Zito, Hudson, Mulder. Beane had nothing to do with drafting them. Until the 2002 moneyball draft, he let scouts do the drafting, and those scouts he hates so much, and also belong to the "club" drafted those guys, as well as Harden, Giambi, Chavez, and also signed Tejada to the system. He had nothing to do with any of them.

Swisher and Blanton are the first two guys to come out of the farm that Beane is responsible for. If they do great, then you can give Beane credit for them. Until then, he doesn't deserve much credit because he doesn't have much to do with the A's success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you F_M ! Wow thats two in a row where we agree. Anyways, I feel that the A's success is attributed to drafting good players. Good scouting, and just making the right move. I feel that "moneyball" is a bit overrated. How many World Series rings has it brought them. They may field a nice starting 9 but with no depth they wind up either just missing the playoffs or making a first round exit. Mulder, Zito, Hudson I dont know any team that cant win with those three pitching every five days. The true test with "moneyball" is now. As for Beane, you cant deny his eye for talent.

692605[/snapback]

 

but thats all about Moneyball

 

is it overrated? Sure, because thats all everyone talks about.

 

Even though I cant stand the fact that Beane doesnt watch his team play

693374[/snapback]

No thats not moneyball, its called running a MLB team. What team doesnt attempt to draft well, scout well or make the right move. The Yankees try to do the samethings. Just because they pay for talent doesnt mean they dont scout well, or draft well, or even make the right moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now? An overrated Eric Duncan and Robinson Cano, a middle infielder in his mid-20s with a bad glove.

693779[/snapback]

There is NO DOUBT that the Yankee farm system is depleted. They send all their talent out for proven players. Do you not understand english. The Yankees are known for their scouting, they are known to have some of the best scouts in the business. I am not a Yankee fan, but facts are facts.

 

My original post was to show that good scouting, drafting good players and making the right moves is NOT moneyball, its called running a baseball team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees haven't been known for their domestic scouting for a long long time. Half of those you guys named that have contributed to their recent dynasty on the field and in trades have came from other lands, where they were attracted by the cash and mystique of the Yanks. I'm usually one of the staunchest Yankee sympathizers here, but come on. The Yankees waste their great resources on duds time and time again. The Athletics have found ways to maximize their meager scouting and player development resources by using stats and studying trends such as the success of college pitchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those guys the Yankees have scouted and drafted sure have developed into top prospects.

693764[/snapback]

who was the guy responsible for drafting or signing all the following players into the Yankees farm, the 5 key players of the dynasty:

Derek Jeter

Andy Pettitte

Jorge Posada

Bernie Williams

Mariano Rivera

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...