February 7, 200422 yr I am a true fan of Billy Beanes philosophy and sabermetrics all together. I just want to know what everyone else thinks.
February 7, 200422 yr i think sabremetrics are a great way to measure player value. i loved moneyball. one of my favorite books.
February 7, 200422 yr yes and no. mostly yes. you still have to put a team together who won't try to kill each other.
February 7, 200422 yr Author i think sabremetrics are a great way to measure player value. i loved moneyball. one of my favorite books. I agree that is the best book I have ever read.
February 7, 200422 yr yes and no. mostly yes. you still have to put a team together who won't try to kill each other. 1978 Yankees anyone? The philosophy is valid, it just can't control for nortorious postseason f*** ups and injury. Oakland could of won that series many times over...but the part that scares me is that the team has a BAD obp. Nonetheless, obp works, obp is good. However, moving ahead runners by making productive outs (not bunting) by avoiding strike outs. Look at the Yankees, who had a fine team ops but 1042 Ks, the only postseason team with more was the cubs. Contact is good, but overall yes obp is king and so is ops. However, against GOOD pitching, "long haul" season numbers don't play out the same. Big deal your ops is good, they will strike you out and strand runners on seccond. Again, OBP is king, but there are still intangibles in the games. Some guys just make contact when you need them to, and if they make an out, at least they move ahead a runner...and this comes from someone who is 100% the idea of using sac bunts. Overall again, high ops teams with adequate or better pitching consistently make the postseason. However, since 2000 (the mets were better), the most "Sabermetrically" sound teams haven't won the world series. Nevertheless, sabremetrics work.
February 7, 200422 yr yes and no. mostly yes. you still have to put a team together who won't try to kill each other. 1978 Yankees anyone? The philosophy is valid, it just can't control for nortorious postseason f*** ups and injury. see my sig. also you'll find other notable exceptions. like the Big Red Machine, Johnny Bench and Pete Rose hated each other. but it takes absolutly incredible teams to over come those obstacles. that's why in a free draft, putting a team together, i probably wouldn't take Barry Bonds.
February 7, 200422 yr barry bonds is the perfect ballplayer right now. You would have to take him! and don't get me going about my manager.
February 7, 200422 yr I loved the book moneyball but I just disagreed with some of the things he said like bunting is waste of an out.
February 7, 200422 yr I loved the book moneyball but I just disagreed with some of the things he said like bunting is waste of an out. it is, unless you have an atrocisious hitter at the plate or a pitcher. i like bunting for basehits...a sac bunt is a waste of an out, and it's proven to be a waste of an out.
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.