October 20, 200719 yr And Fielder was off the board before Swisher so the argument is pretty moot. Well, I haven't read Moneyball for probably 3 years, but I remember Beane saying he would have taken him # 1 overall as best overall player. I think someone in the thread mentioned it too. Point is, if I can get a Swisher level player with a pick in the draft every year, which Oakland is pretty much doing, you're doing great even if you miss the high upside high schooler. I do hate the, but he didn't identify the best player in the draft argument, though. I'm sure Toronto is super pissed they drafted Alex Rios instead of Albert Pujols in 1999, or the Mariners took Tino Martinez in 1988 instead of Mike Piazza, to use outrageous examples, or that the Nationals have Ryan Zimmerman over Ryan Braun a few years ago. Dudes are all awesome. You beat the odds and drafted an impact MLB level player. No sense in quibbing that you didn't draft the best of the best. Oakland does an amazing job. Done.
October 21, 200719 yr Did they draft David Eckstein or Scott Podsednik? No. They fail. You're wrong. They drafted Freddie Bynum, which satisfies this requirement.
October 22, 200719 yr Did they draft David Eckstein or Scott Podsednik? No. They fail. You're wrong. They drafted Freddie Bynum, which satisfies this requirement. Any draft that includes a player of Freddie Bynum's caliber is a success.
October 23, 200719 yr What you're essentially saying is that Moneyball ignores certain variables. And while that's partly true, in some cases, you have to ignore minute variables, but the entire point of Moneyball is just that. Moneyball is not OBP, defense and the 3-run homer. It's the discovery of which variables are important in the evaluation of a ballplayer and the appropriate weight they add to a team.
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.