View Single Post
07-10-2009, 01:08 PM
Mayor Bee
Mayor Bee's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,760
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by starlighter View Post
No....and fans of the NHL should be happy there is no moneyball.

This is one of the most over-hyped, garbage information out there.

It's true some of the money ball priniciapls are useful....things such as On-base-percentage.

However moneyball does not believe in stealing bases and the recommendations it makes for not having a closer shows the authors/creators of this theory have no regard at all for the physical nature of pitching and no common sense for sports.
I thnk you've missed the entire point of the book and the A's application of it. The central tenet is how a team that has no business winning more than 65 games a year regularly competes for playoff spots by attempting to determine exactly what type of tradeoff can be used in order to create a certain type of lineup.

Stealing bases requires a certain minimum percentage to become useful to the offnese rather than a liability. Oakland in their lengthy post-Rickey Henderson era has never had anyone able to steal at this minimum threshold, whether they were brought up through the farm system, traded for, or signed as a free agent.

As for the physical nature of pitching, there's approximately one person in the planet who knows what he's talking about. I'm not him (although I've studied his methods carefully) and neither are you.

It took a few novel ideads, like on base percentage and scouting, and added garbage like no stealing and no set 'closer', and was nothing more than a clearinghouse for stat geeks who never played the sport.
The idea of a relief ace who is used in important situations (for example, a tied game in the 7th inning) rather than in "save situations" (up three runs in the 9th with no one on base) is brilliant. It's something that was an established standard for a lot longer than the idea of a one-inning closer that has created all-stars out of Billy Koch.

As for "never played the sport", who cares. How many top-level executives in sports actually played that sport at a high level? That'd be a very, very short list.

How you can recommend that it is wise to take out a dimension of the game, like stealing bases, really is ridicolous.
See above.

Ask any reliever to how realistic it is not to have 'set' roles.
If I need to know how to construct a team, the last people I'm asking are players. We can ask Elroy Face about how detrimental not having a "set role" was, or maybe Bruce Sutter or Dan Quisenberry or Goose Gossage.

The theory is worthless and the Red Sox have won because of good scouting, money, and the OBP.
They dismissed the closer theory and they do steal bases.
Why hasn't it worked for the Yankees since 2000?

The A's always choked in the playoffs because they never could manufacture a run.
Or because a five-game series is a complete crapshoot in which an inferior team wins a decent amount of the time.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote