I read Moneyball last month and it judt totally blew my mind and I am a believer in sabermetrics and I think if the Marlins tried to embrace they could very well succeed using MoneyBall a couple of years from now

haven't read the book, but can't disagree with success

Partially, I think the success Beane has had has as much to do about his ability to negotiate and manipulate trades and the fact that he's just willing to take risks and doesn't get attached to players.

 

J.P. is having nice success in Toronto and then their's Depo who isn't doing s***.

 

Overall, I think it's partially right but you can't take it as gospel.

Yes, because of the success of the A's under Billy Beane. However, I am almost tempted to vote no because of the word's association with the Great White North and :mischief .

Ofcourse I believe in myself. :mischief

 

But seriously. It's just another way of running a team.

numbers dont tell the whole story

I read Moneyball last month and it judt totally blew my mind and I am a believer in sabermetrics and I think if the Marlins tried to embrace they could very well succeed using MoneyBall a couple of years from now

881043[/snapback]

 

I think we've done pretty well with what we've been doing. How many World Championships do the A's have under Beane? Not saying it's not a fine system, but it just seems like people forget we've also had success without using it.

Some combination of stats and scouts, which about every team does to some extent, is best.

 

Can't hate on Billy Beane, though.

Smallball is slightly more ridiculous than moneyball. I am a believer in the longball. I'm just a sucker for a high OPS really.

If by moneyball you mean investigating and evaluating data to find certain trends and patterns to better understand what is and is not successful on the field and on the player market, yeah, big believer.

 

If by moneyball, you mean some sort style of baseball well that would depend on the team you already have.

haven't read the book, but can't disagree with success

881046[/snapback]

Losing in the ALDS three straight years is success?

haven't read the book, but can't disagree with success

881046[/snapback]

Losing in the ALDS three straight years is success?

881428[/snapback]

 

getting to the playoffs in baseball = success

I don't believe in Moneyball, however I do believe the A's and Braves do the best job in baseball with their pitchers, and as a result, both are having consistent longterm success (the Braves moreso than the A's obviously).

I like moneyball, which looks into the market and finds the biggest bang for your buck characteristic among players and then invests in it to yield the highest result from the lowest investment. The true capitalist way, really.

 

I do not, however, believe in SABRmetrics, which is probably what you are talking about. Some of the aspects of it are nice, like OBP and a couple other things. But on the whole I don't agree with it, and to save myself from writing a book I won't get into them.

 

You are probably referring to the system in the book and aren't aware Beane switched from OBP to defense now as his new thing to buy up.

Since When????

The same concepts behind what led him to the conclusions on base ability was underrated in terms of on field led him to the conclusion of getting good defenders. Note that in Moneyball, Beane and the A's were/had developing a way to measure defense better than in the past. It's all sabremetrics, "the search for objective knowledge about baseball."

But Didn't AVM systems show that the difference between a GG(Johny Damon) and terrible defender(Terrence Long) was about 15 runs over the couse of a season and since a baseball team scores between 600-800 runs and gives up about the same this showed that only 10% of baseball was fielding

Not aware of that study, but that doesn't tell us if the defensive skills the A's are investing in are appropriately valued by the market.

Not aware of that study, but that doesn't tell us if the defensive skills the A's are investing in are appropriately valued by the market.

883926[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure but I think this study is mentioned in Moneyball.