Billy Beane

[LittleHurt05]

LOL. I assume the 12 game stretch you are referring to is the 2005 postseason? The Sox had the best record in baseball and lead wire to wire. To say they overachieved or to cherry pick the playoff run like they were the '03 lucky-ass Marlins is insane. Ridiculous post. They ruled baseball that entire season from April 1 to the Uribe throw to Konerko on October 26th. Time and revisionist history doesn't erase that fact.

 

I think you completely misread what I was trying to say. Given the size of the Sox payroll compared to their division mates, they should have made more than 2 playoff appearances during the KW era. His teams often underacheived. Because of what happened in 2005, all that will be forgotten and he will forever be a WS champion GM.

 

On the contrary, given what Billy Beane has had to work with, the amount of times he has made the playoffs is very impressive. However, nobody seems to care anymore, they only remember his teams' struggles in October.

[Kyyle23]

I think you completely misread what I was trying to say. Given the size of the Sox payroll compared to their division mates, they should have made more than 2 playoff appearances during the KW era. His teams often underacheived. Because of what happened in 2005, all that will be forgotten and he will forever be a WS champion GM.

 

On the contrary, given what Billy Beane has had to work with, the amount of times he has made the playoffs is very impressive. However, nobody seems to care anymore, they only remember his teams' struggles in October.

 

heck, the Braves organization gets a ton of crap for only winning one world series when they made the playoffs like 18 years in a row. Thats crazy

[Y2Jimmy0]

He did not have a major motion picture made about him. There was a major motion picture that was made about the book Moneyball, which was written by Michael Lewis as he documented the Oakland Athletics' season and organizational philosophy (which was fluffed to no end). Beane did do something ground-breaking and radical when he came into the job in Oakland, and now every team in the majors is doing it. It doesn't mean he's the only smart GM in the game.

 

 

Wait Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball?

[Kyyle23]

Wait Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball?

 

Brad Pitt did. I mean Jonah Hill.

 

Somebody wrote it. Somebody not named Kenny Williams

[Y2Jimmy0]

Brad Pitt did. I mean Jonah Hill.

 

Somebody wrote it. Somebody not named Kenny Williams

 

 

Isn't it Joe Morgan that still thinks the book was written by Billy Beane? haha

[Kyyle23]

Isn't it Joe Morgan that still thinks the book was written by Billy Beane? haha

 

Joe Morgans only thought is "Ryne Sandberg is not better than me"

[caulfield12]

heck, the Braves organization gets a ton of crap for only winning one world series when they made the playoffs like 18 years in a row. Thats crazy

 

14

[harfman77]

seems like a guy who is trying to save his job and win NOW.

 

Not sure his job would ever be in jeopardy there as they know they have a good thing going.

 

Seems to be a guy that looks at his watch, sees its closing time and pushes all his chips in to try and win big before leaving. Would not be surprised to see Beane leave Oakland after this. The only problem I have with his strategy was to include the first round pick in getting Lester. That roster is going to need to be blown up this winter with Donaldson and Samardzjia being traded to fill holes on the roster and get some semblance of talent in their farm system to try and contend again in the next few seasons.

[cabiness42]

Having an ongoing debate with a die-hard sabrematician about Oakland's persistent playoff failure. He insists that the playoffs are such a small sample size compared to the regular season that you can't judge the success of a team (or a GM who built the team) based on playoff performance. He essentially writes off playoff failure as "random chance." I really think it's a bunch of BS. Every time something doesn't perform to the sabremetric model, it gets written off as random chance.

 

Now I have plenty of background in statistics and completely get that sabremetrics has greatly improved how player talent and performance is evaluated, but I'll never buy that you lose every year in the playoffs due to bad luck.

 

One thing that I've never seen any research on is the impact of the structure of playoff series compared to the regular season and how that might impact certain teams. The regular season contains stretches of 6 up to as many as 20 days in a row with games, which requires five starting pitchers, a second catcher starting several games, and heavy bench and bullpen utilization. In the playoffs you never play more than 3 days in a row, so you don't need a 5th starter, don't need to play your second catcher, and can use your bench and your worst relievers less.

 

Take these two hypothetical teams for example:

 

Starting Pitching WAR:

Team A: 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 2.5, 0.0

Team B: 3.0, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5

 

Catcher WAR:

Team A: 5.0, 0.0

Team B: 3.5, 1.5

 

I could go on to make similar contrasts in the rest of the position players and relievers, but this should be enough to illustrate the point. Both teams have the same total WAR in their starting pitching and catching. Over the course of a 162 game season, both teams should expect to win about the same number of games. However, in the playoffs, Team A has an advantage over Team B due to not using the 5th starter or second catcher.

 

So, I think there are two issues at hand. (1) Is the difference in roster usage from regular season to playoffs enough to change how good teams are relative to each other and (2) if so, do GMs need to take this into account when constructing their rosters?

[Balta1701]

So, I think there are two issues at hand. (1) Is the difference in roster usage from regular season to playoffs enough to change how good teams are relative to each other and (2) if so, do GMs need to take this into account when constructing their rosters?

My prejudices are:

 

1. Yes, there is enough of a difference in the playoffs that such things do matter.

2. No. It's too hard to make the playoffs every year that you have to give priority to making the playoffs. Once that happens you count on it being a crapshoot even if it isn't. Do whatever you can to make the playoffs first.

[cabiness42]

My prejudices are:

 

1. Yes, there is enough of a difference in the playoffs that such things do matter.

2. No. It's too hard to make the playoffs every year that you have to give priority to making the playoffs. Once that happens you count on it being a crapshoot even if it isn't. Do whatever you can to make the playoffs first.

 

Yes, I get that you have to make the playoffs in order to win in the playoffs, but if you're a GM and you have $15M to spend for next season and with that $15M you can get two 2.0 WAR pitchers, or you can get one 4.0 WAR pitcher and then fill the other spot with a AAAA player, shouldn't you take the second option?

[Balta1701]

Yes, I get that you have to make the playoffs in order to win in the playoffs, but if you're a GM and you have $15M to spend for next season and with that $15M you can get two 2.0 WAR pitchers, or you can get one 4.0 WAR pitcher and then fill the other spot with a AAAA player, shouldn't you take the second option?

Generally yes, I'd say its preferable to have a #2 starter quality guy, but especially in the latter case you underestimated what they'd actually be paid. Teams seem more likely to pay a premium for the 2nd guy, making him a $20 million contract if everything else is somehow equal.

[LittleHurt05]

Having an ongoing debate with a die-hard sabrematician about Oakland's persistent playoff failure. He insists that the playoffs are such a small sample size compared to the regular season that you can't judge the success of a team (or a GM who built the team) based on playoff performance. He essentially writes off playoff failure as "random chance." I really think it's a bunch of BS. Every time something doesn't perform to the sabremetric model, it gets written off as random chance.

 

Now I have plenty of background in statistics and completely get that sabremetrics has greatly improved how player talent and performance is evaluated, but I'll never buy that you lose every year in the playoffs due to bad luck.

 

One thing that I've never seen any research on is the impact of the structure of playoff series compared to the regular season and how that might impact certain teams. The regular season contains stretches of 6 up to as many as 20 days in a row with games, which requires five starting pitchers, a second catcher starting several games, and heavy bench and bullpen utilization. In the playoffs you never play more than 3 days in a row, so you don't need a 5th starter, don't need to play your second catcher, and can use your bench and your worst relievers less.

 

Take these two hypothetical teams for example:

 

Starting Pitching WAR:

Team A: 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 2.5, 0.0

Team B: 3.0, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5

 

Catcher WAR:

Team A: 5.0, 0.0

Team B: 3.5, 1.5

 

I could go on to make similar contrasts in the rest of the position players and relievers, but this should be enough to illustrate the point. Both teams have the same total WAR in their starting pitching and catching. Over the course of a 162 game season, both teams should expect to win about the same number of games. However, in the playoffs, Team A has an advantage over Team B due to not using the 5th starter or second catcher.

 

So, I think there are two issues at hand. (1) Is the difference in roster usage from regular season to playoffs enough to change how good teams are relative to each other and (2) if so, do GMs need to take this into account when constructing their rosters?

 

Oakland uses platooning in the lineup more than any other team. They have RHB that hit LHP well and LHB that hit RHP well and aren't afraid to freely interchange them. That works well during the season when you face a smorgasbord of starting pitchers and managers are more conservative with their bullpen. However, during the playoffs that advantage greatly diminishes.

 

For example, they traded for Jonny Gomes who has been great against LHP. That might work well against Bruce Chen or Joe Saunders, but in the playoffs when you have to face a Bumgarner or Lester (hypothetically), he's just another batter. Same thing with the bullpens. In the regular season, a manager may not bring in a lefty to face Adam Dunn in the 6th, but in the playoffs every out matters so it's more likely. Either you are stuck with the tough matchup for Dunn or you bring in a RHB, lose Dunn's bat, then potentially face the same tough matchup in the 8th with a righty reliever.

[greg775]

LOL. I assume the 12 game stretch you are referring to is the 2005 postseason? The Sox had the best record in baseball and lead wire to wire. To say they overachieved or to cherry pick the playoff run like they were the '03 lucky-ass Marlins is insane. Ridiculous post. They ruled baseball that entire season from April 1 to the Uribe throw to Konerko on October 26th. Time and revisionist history doesn't erase that fact.

 

There are still intangibles in sports like momentum and magic. That team was a runaway train. It was steamrolling and couldn't be stopped. The starting pitching was amazing and Ozzie/Coop didn't feel the need to take the guys out in the seventh inning when one bad matchup existed.

It was magic and the Sabes numbers sometimes didn't apply.

Don't stop believin' baby. It was fate and hard work and momentum combined. Take that Billy Beane. Your teams haven't had the mojo yet.

Edited October 3, 2014 by greg775

[NorthSideSox72]

There are still intangibles in sports like momentum and magic. That team was a runaway train. It was steamrolling and couldn't be stopped. The starting pitching was amazing and Ozzie/Coop didn't feel the need to take the guys out in the seventh inning when one bad matchup existed.

It was magic and the Sabes numbers sometimes didn't apply.

Don't stop believin' baby. It was fate and hard work and momentum combined. Take that Billy Beane. Your teams haven't had the mojo yet.

Intangibles? Sure, there are plenty of things that can't be measured that have an effect.

 

Magic, though? Really?

 

Also FYI, that 2005 team was really, really good, and "sabes" would happily tell you that. They had insanely good pitching, which was far and away what got them a trophy, they hit for power, and played good defense. All those things can be measured and analyzed for value in "sabes".

 

[witesoxfan]

There are still intangibles in sports like momentum and magic. That team was a runaway train. It was steamrolling and couldn't be stopped. The starting pitching was amazing and Ozzie/Coop didn't feel the need to take the guys out in the seventh inning when one bad matchup existed.

It was magic and the Sabes numbers sometimes didn't apply.

Don't stop believin' baby. It was fate and hard work and momentum combined. Take that Billy Beane. Your teams haven't had the mojo yet.

 

Except, if not for Crede's walk-off agianst Cleveland, that team could have easily fallen out of first place late in the year and then who knows?

[Rowand44]

There are still intangibles in sports like momentum and magic. That team was a runaway train. It was steamrolling and couldn't be stopped. The starting pitching was amazing and Ozzie/Coop didn't feel the need to take the guys out in the seventh inning when one bad matchup existed.

It was magic and the Sabes numbers sometimes didn't apply.

Don't stop believin' baby. It was fate and hard work and momentum combined. Take that Billy Beane. Your teams haven't had the mojo yet.

Agreed, I'm all about hiring Magicians to make my baseball team better.

[kitekrazy]

I find mid season trades don't really pay off until the next season.

[greg775]

Intangibles? Sure, there are plenty of things that can't be measured that have an effect.

 

Magic, though? Really?

 

Also FYI, that 2005 team was really, really good, and "sabes" would happily tell you that. They had insanely good pitching, which was far and away what got them a trophy, they hit for power, and played good defense. All those things can be measured and analyzed for value in "sabes".

I doubt the sabermetricians approved of Ozzie leaving those starters in the whole game.

[LittleHurt05]

I doubt the sabermetricians approved of Ozzie leaving those starters in the whole game.

 

I disagree. None of those starters were near their pitch limit nor were they in dangerous situations with runners on. They either had big leads or low pitch counts, even Ned Yost would have kept them in

[greg775]

I disagree. None of those starters were near their pitch limit nor were they in dangerous situations with runners on. They either had big leads or low pitch counts, even Ned Yost would have kept them in

Hmmm ... As I recall no other team in the postseason has come close to that kind of use of its starting pitchers a few years before and since 2005. I still think the Sabes people and all "modern" baseball tacticians would say that would NEVER work. Magic, destiny I tell ya. It's not ALL about numbers (cough, Billy Beane).

[caulfield12]

Hmmm ... As I recall no other team in the postseason has come close to that kind of use of its starting pitchers a few years before and since 2005. I still think the Sabes people and all "modern" baseball tacticians would say that would NEVER work. Magic, destiny I tell ya. It's not ALL about numbers (cough, Billy Beane).

 

Every manager will go his pen when it's finnegan Duffy Herrera Davis and holland.

It's when the choice is Ventura vs. Collins/Fraser/Coleman/downs that it gets much trickier.

I'm sure ausmus would have pitched anibal Sanchez an additional inning yesterday had he known the outcome in advance...Greg ur a big soria guy and he just doesn't have the crispness or movement after coming back from injury. It's not about sabes. It's about a managers intuition and decision-making ability.

 

[caulfield12]

Hmmm ... As I recall no other team in the postseason has come close to that kind of use of its starting pitchers a few years before and since 2005. I still think the Sabes people and all "modern" baseball tacticians would say that would NEVER work. Magic, destiny I tell ya. It's not ALL about numbers (cough, Billy Beane).

 

Every manager will go his pen when it's finnegan Duffy Herrera Davis and holland.

 

It's when the choice is Ventura vs. Collins/Fraser/Coleman/downs that it gets much trickier.

 

I'm sure ausmus would have pitched anibal Sanchez an additional inning yesterday had he known the outcome in advance...Greg ur a big soria guy and he just doesn't have the crispness or movement after coming back from injury. A good manager would have recognized that the previous day and adjusted.

 

It's not about sabes. It's about a managers intuition and decision-making ability.

Edited October 4, 2014 by caulfield12

[oldsox]

Back to Billy Beane, he gave up too mcuh for Smardj....a.

[Quin]

Sabermetrics, traditional stats, etc. will ALL tell you that the 2005 White Sox were great.

 

That pitching staff had a historic postseason.

 

Honestly, the dominance of the '05 White Sox is/will be severely overlooked in history.

 

Anyone think they might have been the most dominant of the past decade?