There are those that live in the statistical world, where everything can be averaged out and attributed to luck, and there are those that see the reasons behind results and live in the real world.

 

You've gotta be kidding?

 

Between 2000 and 2006 the Athletics averaged 95 wins a season... that's an incredible figure. Especially given the circumstances. In that time... he managed to construct an very dominant pitching staff in Zito/Hudson/Mulder (who have subsequently gone their separate, different ways...)

 

In 2001, for example.. the Athletics scored 884 runs and allowed 645 runs. That's incredible, they also won 100 games. In the real world, that's a very good team.

 

The Pennant winning Yankees scored 804 runs and allowed 713 runs. That's worse on both ends by a considerable amount.

 

So... the team that scored fewer runs per game and allowed more beat the team that scored more and gave up less... what part of "luck" doesn't that indicate? Also, during that stretch, the series's would typically stretch out to the last game..

 

2000 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 947 runs, Allowed 813 runs, 91-70

2001 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 884 runs, Allowed 645 runs, 102-60

2002 Lost to Twins, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 800 runs, Allowed 654 runs, 103-59

2003 Lost to Red Sox, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 768 runs, Allowed 643 runs, 96-66

2004 Didn't qualify, won 91 games, finished 1 GB ANA - On the season: Scored 793 runs, Allowed 742 runs, 91-71

2005 Didn't qualify, won 88 games, finished 7 GB LAA - On the season: Scored 772 runs, Allowed 658 runs, 88-74

2006 Won LDS 3-0 over MIN, lost 4-0 over DET - On the season: Scored 771 runs, Allowed 727, 93-69

 

Between 2000 and 2003 every last one of those series could have gone either way. and for the two times not making the playoffs... averaging almost 90 wins and NOT making the playoffs is nothing to be ashamed of. The year in which they had one of their lowest run differentials, they got the deepest in the playoffs. The year in which they were probably at their weakest, they advanced the farthest... do you not see the "luck" factor in that? There can only be ONE WS representative every year... so to say that Beane's method "doesn't work" is flat out ignorant and wrong.

 

Everything you posted pretty much supports my argument. He put up teams that were good enough in the regular season, not good enough in the playoffs.

But that has nothing to do with the Moneyball theories not working, because if that were true the Red Sox would still be waiting for their first WS in 90 years. That's just bad luck and small sample sizes.

Everything you posted pretty much supports my argument. He put up teams that were good enough in the regular season, not good enough in the playoffs.

 

You don't have an argument...

 

You can't be "good enough" in the regular season to win 100 games and then be incapable of winning a World Series. That is completely asinine.

 

I guess if the Red Sox were to lose a series to the Royals, the Royals are the better team overall? I mean... they won a series!

There are those that live in the statistical world, where everything can be averaged out and attributed to luck, and there are those that see the reasons behind results and live in the real world.

 

You've gotta be kidding?

 

Between 2000 and 2006 the Athletics averaged 95 wins a season... that's an incredible figure. Especially given the circumstances. In that time... he managed to construct an very dominant pitching staff in Zito/Hudson/Mulder (who have subsequently gone their separate, different ways...)

 

In 2001, for example.. the Athletics scored 884 runs and allowed 645 runs. That's incredible, they also won 100 games. In the real world, that's a very good team.

 

The Pennant winning Yankees scored 804 runs and allowed 713 runs. That's worse on both ends by a considerable amount.

 

So... the team that scored fewer runs per game and allowed more beat the team that scored more and gave up less... what part of "luck" doesn't that indicate? Also, during that stretch, the series's would typically stretch out to the last game..

 

2000 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 947 runs, Allowed 813 runs, 91-70

2001 Lost to Yankees, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 884 runs, Allowed 645 runs, 102-60

2002 Lost to Twins, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 800 runs, Allowed 654 runs, 103-59

2003 Lost to Red Sox, 3-2 - On the season: Scored 768 runs, Allowed 643 runs, 96-66

2004 Didn't qualify, won 91 games, finished 1 GB ANA - On the season: Scored 793 runs, Allowed 742 runs, 91-71

2005 Didn't qualify, won 88 games, finished 7 GB LAA - On the season: Scored 772 runs, Allowed 658 runs, 88-74

2006 Won LDS 3-0 over MIN, lost 4-0 over DET - On the season: Scored 771 runs, Allowed 727, 93-69

 

Between 2000 and 2003 every last one of those series could have gone either way. and for the two times not making the playoffs... averaging almost 90 wins and NOT making the playoffs is nothing to be ashamed of. The year in which they had one of their lowest run differentials, they got the deepest in the playoffs. The year in which they were probably at their weakest, they advanced the farthest... do you not see the "luck" factor in that? There can only be ONE WS representative every year... so to say that Beane's method "doesn't work" is flat out ignorant and wrong.

 

Everything you posted pretty much supports my argument. He put up teams that were good enough in the regular season, not good enough in the playoffs.

But that has nothing to do with the Moneyball theories not working, because if that were true the Red Sox would still be waiting for their first WS in 90 years. That's just bad luck and small sample sizes.

 

I didn't say that moneyball theories were entirely useless, it has allowed Beane to field competitive teams. Its just that it isn't going to allow him to field a championship team because there is always going to be somebody better.

I didn't say that moneyball theories were entirely useless, it has allowed Beane to field competitive teams. Its just that it isn't going to allow him to field a championship team because there is always going to be somebody better.

 

That's a general rule to life, regardless of what methods you use. But you're saying Beane's methods are actually KEEPING him from winning a world series... when in all actuality, it's giving his team the best chance

Everything you posted pretty much supports my argument. He put up teams that were good enough in the regular season, not good enough in the playoffs.

 

You don't have an argument...

 

You can't be "good enough" in the regular season to win 100 games and then be incapable of winning a World Series. That is completely asinine.

 

I guess if the Red Sox were to lose a series to the Royals, the Royals are the better team overall? I mean... they won a series!

 

If the Royals were to win a playoffs series against the Red Sox, then yes. They would be. Every player on both teams knows the gravity of the situation in the playoffs. Everyone is playing in a level where the tension is heightened tenfold, and every single swing brings drama. A small sample size is one game, but inferior teams just don't beat superior teams that often in a series. Thats why we know they are bad teams.

 

I think its one of the most ludicrous statements ever to indicate that the teams who win in this situation are lucky and that the teams who don't aren't. Its the teams who have the players that can step up in this situation that are the ones that can have success.

 

Billy Beane had Hudson, Mulder, and Zito, Chavez, Crosby, Tejada. The problem was that the Yankees had better guys, like Clemens, Jeter, Williams, Posada, etc.

I didn't say that moneyball theories were entirely useless, it has allowed Beane to field competitive teams. Its just that it isn't going to allow him to field a championship team because there is always going to be somebody better.

 

That's a general rule to life, regardless of what methods you use. But you're saying Beane's methods are actually KEEPING him from winning a world series... when in all actuality, it's giving his team the best chance

 

It has also held him back though because he fails to beat quality opponents. Its kind of a method for being good cheaply while never actually being great, which is what it requires to win a championship.

I didn't say that moneyball theories were entirely useless, it has allowed Beane to field competitive teams. Its just that it isn't going to allow him to field a championship team because there is always going to be somebody better.

 

That's a general rule to life, regardless of what methods you use. But you're saying Beane's methods are actually KEEPING him from winning a world series... when in all actuality, it's giving his team the best chance

 

It has also held him back though because he fails to beat quality opponents. Its kind of a method for being good cheaply while never actually being great, which is what it requires to win a championship.

But, like I've mentioned something like 900 times, the Red Sox have used these same theories to win two championships in the last 4 years.

It has also held him back though because he fails to beat quality opponents. Its kind of a method for being good cheaply while never actually being great, which is what it requires to win a championship.

 

This is so wrong... he won over 100 games twice and over 90 two times. Do you not think he beat quality opponents down the line? Those teams WERE great... you're just blind to that fact because they didn't win a world series.

 

HOW... How does it hold him back? How does winning 100 games and putting 3 ace quality pitchers at the top of your rotation hold you back? How does scoring almost 200 more runs than you allow "hold you back"?

 

You're COMPLETELY wrong on this one...

It has also held him back though because he fails to beat quality opponents. Its kind of a method for being good cheaply while never actually being great, which is what it requires to win a championship.

 

This is so wrong... he won over 100 games twice and over 90 two times. Do you not think he beat quality opponents down the line? Those teams WERE great... you're just blind to that fact because they didn't win a world series.

 

HOW... How does it hold him back? How does winning 100 games and putting 3 ace quality pitchers at the top of your rotation hold you back? How does scoring almost 200 more runs than you allow "hold you back"?

 

You're COMPLETELY wrong on this one...

 

They hardly even won a playoff series. I'm sorry, but in what world does that qualify you as great? If you want to judge greatness by what a team does in the regular season than go ahead. But I'm not going to consider myself wrong for thinking that the teams that won when the games actually mattered were just a little better.

 

I'll ask you- who on those teams stepped up when the championship was on the line? Who elevated their play in order to get their team a ring? What championship caliber players did Beane's magic moneyball system uncover? Not a single darn one.

I didn't say that moneyball theories were entirely useless, it has allowed Beane to field competitive teams. Its just that it isn't going to allow him to field a championship team because there is always going to be somebody better.

 

That's a general rule to life, regardless of what methods you use. But you're saying Beane's methods are actually KEEPING him from winning a world series... when in all actuality, it's giving his team the best chance

 

It has also held him back though because he fails to beat quality opponents. Its kind of a method for being good cheaply while never actually being great, which is what it requires to win a championship.

But, like I've mentioned something like 900 times, the Red Sox have used these same theories to win two championships in the last 4 years.

 

The Red Sox have also spent more money just to talk to a Japanese team about signing one of their players than some teams do in an entire year. If anything, I'd say the Red Sox champion the lets throw money at every good player we can get in free agency philosophy.

I didn't say that moneyball theories were entirely useless, it has allowed Beane to field competitive teams. Its just that it isn't going to allow him to field a championship team because there is always going to be somebody better.

 

That's a general rule to life, regardless of what methods you use. But you're saying Beane's methods are actually KEEPING him from winning a world series... when in all actuality, it's giving his team the best chance

 

It has also held him back though because he fails to beat quality opponents. Its kind of a method for being good cheaply while never actually being great, which is what it requires to win a championship.

But, like I've mentioned something like 900 times, the Red Sox have used these same theories to win two championships in the last 4 years.

 

The Red Sox have also spent more money just to talk to a Japanese team about signing one of their players than some teams do in an entire year. If anything, I'd say the Red Sox champion the lets throw money at every good player we can get in free agency philosophy.

Yeah, but how did they choose which players were good? Using SABR/Moneyball formula's. This is why the Red Sox have been doing better than the Tigers, Mets and Yankees, despite all of them spending a lot of money.

I'll ask you- who on those teams stepped up when the championship was on the line? Who elevated their play in order to get their team a ring? What championship caliber players did Beane's magic moneyball system uncover? Not a single darn one.

 

This is all subjective nonsense...

 

Seriously, I just pulled a muscle in my brain reading it.

 

How on Earth can you make that argument.

 

You still haven't explained HOW that works? What held Beane back? Having Zito/Hudson/Mulder (one of the best pitching triumvirates of the time)? Having an offense that typically scored over 150 more runs than they allowed? Doing all this with one of the lowest payrolls in the MLB?

 

The fact is, you're still wrong to say that the "Moneyball Philosophy" PREVENTED Beane from winning a World Series title. And your excuse that the players, who to this point played well enough as a team to win a truckload (90+) of games, didn't "step it up" is empty. I could be wrong here, but the game doesn't change in October... players don't have to catch balls with their teeth... they still use bats and not cast-iron bars... it's the same game...

 

Name me a list of such players, please... a list of players that guarantee your team a world series... because obviously you know a corps of players out there that will get to and win that WS... because really, and I think you could ask anyone this and get the same answer... a team that wins 100 games IS good enough to win the World Series barring bad luck...

 

But in a series of three out of five, or even four out of seven, anything can happen. In a five-game series the worst team in baseball will beat the best team about fifteen percent of the time... Baseball science may still give a team a slight edge, but that edge is overwhelmed by chance...

 

Because science doesn't work in the games that matter most, the people that play them are given one more excuse to revert to barbarism... There isn't much place for the notion that a team that has fallen short of the World Series has had a great season.

 

 

This basically covers everything... all on page 274 of Moneyball - or heck, you can even use the Google Book preview if you want.

 

Now.. if the best team can beat the worst team in a short series 15% of the time, once the teams get more equally matched, as they would in the playoffs, that number shoots up to between 40-50% which... guess what... because a "coin flip". A short series is a small sample-size... it's not indicative to the quality of a team at all.

 

Now, because I know you'll misconstrue the second paragraph... "Science doesn't work in the games that matter most" because "that edge is OVERWHELMED by chance"...

I just want to say that there isn't really a "Moneyball" theory about playing the game. The term "Moneyball" doesn't refer to the play on the field, but the way Beane managed to find players who were undervalued at the time and turned them into a winning ballclub on a low payroll.

I'll ask you- who on those teams stepped up when the championship was on the line? Who elevated their play in order to get their team a ring? What championship caliber players did Beane's magic moneyball system uncover? Not a single darn one.

 

This is all subjective nonsense...

 

Seriously, I just pulled a muscle in my brain reading it.

 

How on Earth can you make that argument.

 

You still haven't explained HOW that works? What held Beane back? Having Zito/Hudson/Mulder (one of the best pitching triumvirates of the time)? Having an offense that typically scored over 150 more runs than they allowed? Doing all this with one of the lowest payrolls in the MLB?

 

The fact is, you're still wrong to say that the "Moneyball Philosophy" PREVENTED Beane from winning a World Series title. And your excuse that the players, who to this point played well enough as a team to win a truckload (90+) of games, didn't "step it up" is empty. I could be wrong here, but the game doesn't change in October... players don't have to catch balls with their teeth... they still use bats and not cast-iron bars... it's the same game...

 

Name me a list of such players, please... a list of players that guarantee your team a world series... because obviously you know a corps of players out there that will get to and win that WS... because really, and I think you could ask anyone this and get the same answer... a team that wins 100 games IS good enough to win the World Series barring bad luck...

 

But in a series of three out of five, or even four out of seven, anything can happen. In a five-game series the worst team in baseball will beat the best team about fifteen percent of the time... Baseball science may still give a team a slight edge, but that edge is overwhelmed by chance...

 

Because science doesn't work in the games that matter most, the people that play them are given one more excuse to revert to barbarism... There isn't much place for the notion that a team that has fallen short of the World Series has had a great season.

 

 

This basically covers everything... all on page 274 of Moneyball - or heck, you can even use the Google Book preview if you want.

 

Now.. if the best team can beat the worst team in a short series 15% of the time, once the teams get more equally matched, as they would in the playoffs, that number shoots up to between 40-50% which... guess what... because a "coin flip". A short series is a small sample-size... it's not indicative to the quality of a team at all.

 

Now, because I know you'll misconstrue the second paragraph... "Science doesn't work in the games that matter most" because "that edge is OVERWHELMED by chance"...

 

Two teams playing each other is not a coin flip. You are reducing the final product into a statistic without considering what decides the outcome- the players on the field. Just because statistically each team may have a fifty percent chance of winning does not mean that one actually does. What's to say that if the Red Sox beat the Rockies in the World Series, that wouldn't have done it 7 times out of ten, or 8?

 

If you reduce everything in your life and the world around you to chance then you must have a sad existence.

 

According to what somebody posted earlier, Billy Beane's teams had 6 playoff series in 5 seasons, and their series record was 1-5. According to what you say, they should at least have had a 40 percent chance of winning, if not 50. So why didn't they win but one series? Maybe it's because Beane didn't put together teams that were well suited to playoff baseball.

 

Now I know that you are going to try and point out that 4 of those were lost by only 1 game, but the quote you posted specifically mentioned series.

Two teams playing each other is not a coin flip. You are reducing the final product into a statistic without considering what decides the outcome- the players on the field. Just because statistically each team may have a fifty percent chance of winning does not mean that one actually does. What's to say that if the Red Sox beat the Rockies in the World Series, that wouldn't have done it 7 times out of ten, or 8?

 

If you reduce everything in your life and the world around you to chance then you must have a sad existence.

 

According to what somebody posted earlier, Billy Beane's teams had 6 playoff series in 5 seasons, and their series record was 1-5. According to what you say, they should at least have had a 40 percent chance of winning, if not 50. So why didn't they win but one series? Maybe it's because Beane didn't put together teams that were well suited to playoff baseball.

 

Now I know that you are going to try and point out that 4 of those were lost by only 1 game, but the quote you posted specifically mentioned series.

 

First of all... you're ignoring answering my question... HOW do you construct a "playoff" team... what does it take? What's required? What, in your infinite wisdom, did any of those teams lack, specifically?

 

Secondly - thanks for taking personal attacks, awesome :thumbup

 

Yeah, in 6 playoff series, Beane's teams are 1-5, that's because of small sample sizes. The only series they didn't lose was the one that didn't go to the last game. So, like I said... those series were incredibly close, as they should be, because the difference between the two teams wasn't as much as an Oakland/Tampa match up at the time.

This just gets tiring, unfortunately. It's similar to the argument that Peyton Manning wasn't a "winner" and wasn't "clutch", but then once he won a Super Bowl, all of a sudden he's a great quarterback who finds ways to win no matter what. It just doesn't make sense, but some people don't want to believe it.

This just gets tiring, unfortunately. It's similar to the argument that Peyton Manning wasn't a "winner" and wasn't "clutch", but then once he won a Super Bowl, all of a sudden he's a great quarterback who finds ways to win no matter what. It just doesn't make sense, but some people don't want to believe it.

 

I think I love you.

 

And I also feel obligated to state that in Baseball Prospectus' Baseball Between The Numbers, (if I remember correctly) they do find a high correlation between outfield defensive proficiency and playoff success. If I'm not mistaken, it has something to do with the hitters in the playoffs being better, thus hitting more line drives.

 

And there were at least a few years where Beane wrote off defense altogether (The Jeremy Giambi seasons come to mind) to the possible detriment of his play off successes. If I remember Moneyball correctly (Been a few years since I read either of these books), he even acknowledges as much. So you could say "Billy Beane's sh*t doesn't work in the playoffs", though I would side with PWG on the chance thing as well. Even with his sh*tty defensive teams, he still wasn't looking at more than a 60% chance of losing. That's how the playoffs work, and we should know this because we all know the 2003 Marlins weren't the best team in baseball that year (Or at least we should know this.)

 

(I highly reccomend that BP book, if you can peep it. Great reading.)