Is it fair to now say that Billy Beane is overrated?

[mweb]

Some on here are huge Beane fans.

Some thought they had a good shot at the playoffs this year.

Well they're 39-51 and have not had a winning season since 2006.

Meanwhile their farm system was ranked very poorly heading into the season. 28th by BA to be exact.

In addition, the trade of Carlos Gonzalez etc for Holliday is looking really bad right now, especially considering he dealt Wallace for Taylor.

I respect Beane and definitely love the theory behind Moneyball, but I've always felt he got somewhat lucky in how the young core developed that he partially inherited and partially drafted.

Tejada, Giambi, Chavez, and Hudson were already in the system when Beane took over. Mulder and Zito were 1st round picks the next 2 years and I'm not sure how much credit he deserves for those picks. Those 6 players became great players for the A's while they were still cheap. He obviously supplemented this core with some solid players, but it's not that hard to put together a good team when you have 6 players producing around 30 WAR and not being paid much to do it.

Now they still remained quite good for a few years after the loss of Giambi and then later Tejada. So I think he did a good job prolonging that initial success, but he obviously hasn't been that effective for awhile and his team doesn't seem to be in that good of a position going forward.

[BaltimoreTerp]

1) It's just as fair as saying that there are plenty of people who have wanted Beane to fail.

2) Anyone who reads Moneyball as a "Billy Beane is, like, so awesome!!1" book and not a "Sandy Alderson began looking at these ideas and implementing them with Beane's help, then Beane took over and brought in his own people with even newer ideas" book is completely missing the point. The book is about the thought process, and doing things that others either cannot or refuse to do in order to improve.

3) Claiming that two guys he drafted "don't count" without any reasoning behind it reeks of cherry-picking. Especially when the general reason given for the team's success by those critical of him are the three pitchers, two of whom he drafted.

4) Isn't claiming that a couple years where the team is doing worse than in the past like claiming Bobby Cox was overrated as a manager because he missed the playoffs in four of his last five years, with two losing records? Especially when Beane managed to turn his entire organization, over a couple years, from an OBP-first focus to a defense-first focus, even if it hasn't worked out as well as he probably expected? I mean, have the Orioles even had a single "focus" in that time?

[mweb]

1) It's just as fair as saying that there are plenty of people who have wanted Beane to fail.

2) Anyone who reads Moneyball as a "Billy Beane is, like, so awesome!!1" book and not a "Sandy Alderson began looking at these ideas and implementing them with Beane's help, then Beane took over and brought in his own people with even newer ideas" book is completely missing the point. The book is about the thought process, and doing things that others either cannot or refuse to do in order to improve.

3) Claiming that two guys he drafted "don't count" without any reasoning behind it reeks of cherry-picking. Especially when the general reason given for the team's success by those critical of him are the three pitchers, two of whom he drafted.

4) Isn't claiming that a couple years where the team is doing worse than in the past like claiming Bobby Cox was overrated as a manager because he missed the playoffs in four of his last five years, with two losing records? Especially when Beane managed to turn his entire organization, over a couple years, from an OBP-first focus to a defense-first focus, even if it hasn't worked out as well as he probably expected? I mean, have the Orioles even had a single "focus" in that time?

3) What are you talking about? I didn't say they don't count. However if Wieters and Matusz had become superstars, I wouldn't heap a ton of accolades on AM for that. Even if you want to give him total credit for the picks and refuse to admit that there was good fortune in both of them becoming aces, the other 4 stars were already in the organization.

4) This will likely be their 5th straight year without a winning record and as I said, they don't seem to be in that good of a position going forward. He had a very good 8 year stretch with 5 playoff appearances. So no, it's not like saying Cox is overrated because his last 5 years, which were a lot better than Beane's as was his glory years. Plus, I think a GM is significantly more important than a manager, although Cox was the GM in the late 80's.

[BaltimoreTerp]

3) What are you talking about? I didn't say they don't count. However if Wieters and Matusz had become superstars, I wouldn't heap a ton of accolades on AM for that. Even if you want to give him total credit for the picks and refuse to admit that there was good fortune in both of them becoming aces, the other 4 stars were already in the organization.

If they failed, he would get the blame for making poor picks, so he should get the accolades for making great picks.

4) This will likely be their 5th straight year without a winning record and as I said, they don't seem to be in that good of a position going forward. He had a very good 8 year stretch with 5 playoff appearances. So no, it's not like saying Cox is overrated because his last 5 years, which were a lot better than Beane's as was his glory years. Plus, I think a GM is significantly more important than a manager, although Cox was the GM in the late 80's.

You're cherry-picking again. They won 81 games last year. So they had three years under .500, and may have another this year.

What is your evidence for suggesting "they don't seem to be in that good of a position going forward"?

[mweb]

If they failed, he would get the blame for making poor picks, so he should get the accolades for making great picks.

You're cherry-picking again. They won 81 games last year. So they had three years under .500, and may have another this year.

What is your evidence for suggesting "they don't seem to be in that good of a position going forward"?

Regarding your first point, no I don't think that's totally true. He's get partial blame as would the scouting director. Regardless, would you not agree that there is some luck involved in drafting? Plus you are ignoring my point that 4 out of 6 of the stars were already there.

I haven't cherry picked anything. They have not had a winning season in 4 straight years and likely won't this year either. That's simply a fact and I have no idea why it would be called cherry picking. How about you argue the points rather than throwing around these pointless accusations?

My evidence is they're having a bad season, don't have much position talent to get excited about, aren't a team that spends big money, and had what was considered one of the worst farm systems in baseball going into the year. Now if the system looks much better now, that would change my outlook some. I don't know if it does or not.

They do have some very good young pitching (bit overrated due to how good their D has been though, along with the park) so they could become good if they can find a way to score a lot more runs. Plus the division is obviously much easier than the AL East.

[Moose Milligan]

I think it's safe to say. Yes.

[Stotle]

I think if you added some of MacPhail's deliberate tendencies to Beane's approach you'd have a better GM. I also think Beane would look better if he was given a little more money to help cover when he runs into some bad luck.

But, yeah, he's one of many solid GMs. He isn't a talent rainmaker.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Regarding your first point, no I don't think that's totally true. He's get partial blame as would the scouting director. Regardless, would you not agree that there is some luck involved in drafting? Plus you are ignoring my point that 4 out of 6 of the stars were already there.

I haven't cherry picked anything. They have not had a winning season in 4 straight years and likely won't this year either. That's simply a fact and I have no idea why it would be called cherry picking. How about you argue the points rather than throwing around these pointless accusations?

My evidence is they're having a bad season, don't have much position talent to get excited about, aren't a team that spends big money, and had what was considered one of the worst farm systems in baseball going into the year. Now if the system looks much better now, that would change my outlook some. I don't know if it does or not.

They do have some very good young pitching (bit overrated due to how good their D has been though, along with the park) so they could become good if they can find a way to score a lot more runs. Plus the division is obviously much easier than the AL East.

They've also had three losing records in the past twelve seasons, with attendance that averages 1.85 million and a payroll averaging tenth in the league.

His five playoff appearances go back to 2000. A list of how far you must go back with other AL clubs to find five playoff appearances.

Baltimore: 1974

Boston: 2004

Chicago: 1983

Cleveland: 1997

Detroit: 1968

Kansas City: 1978

Los Angeles: 2004

Minnesota: 2003

New York: 2005

Seattle: Four total

Tampa Bay: Two total

Texas: Four total

Toronto: 1985

He also took over the team in 1997 with enough talent to win 65 games. They were in the playoffs three years later.

[mweb]

They've also had three losing records in the past twelve seasons, with attendance that averages 1.85 million and a payroll averaging tenth in the league.

His five playoff appearances go back to 2000. A list of how far you must go back with other AL clubs to find five playoff appearances.

Baltimore: 1974

Boston: 2004

Chicago: 1983

Cleveland: 1997

Detroit: 1968

Kansas City: 1978

Los Angeles: 2004

Minnesota: 2003

New York: 2005

Seattle: Four total

Tampa Bay: Two total

Texas: Four total

Toronto: 1985

He also took over the team in 1997 with enough talent to win 65 games. They were in the playoffs three years later.

Yes, led by 6 great young stars, 4 of which were in the system when he took over, and all of which were pretty much best case scenarios. After that run, along with the influence of Moneyball, he was considered to be the best GM or very close to it. Back then the only major critique most had was the lack of titles, which I defended him on. Now his reputation seems to be the same, but the results are no longer good. So yes, I think it's quite fair to question if he's now overrated.

[mweb]

I was expecting more defense of Mr. Beane. Maybe that means some of the people I was referring to as Beane lovers have soured some on their crush.

[Malike]

I've always felt he was overrated. And no matter how a certain poster tries to troll you in this thread, it won't change the fact that he is overrated. I'm not saying he is a poor GM, but people certainly over rate him.

Sent from my EVO 3D using Tapatalk

[Gurgi]

Certainly he is overrated. Anyone who really thinks they have found the holy grail to setting up a baseball club and then goes around telling the world how he did it isnt a smart as he thinks he is. Even if they did have a wonderful approach before it is stupid to talk. Should of kept his trap shut. Should of kept some things on the down low.

[wildcard]

I think Brad Pitt is better.

[Frobby]

He kind of hit the Lotto with Hudson, Mulder and Zito. You can say what you want about all his other theories, etc., but those three pitchers really made that team what it was from 2001-03.

[Stotle]

He kind of hit the Lotto with Hudson, Mulder and Zito. You can say what you want about all his other theories, etc., but those three pitchers really made that team what it was from 2001-03.

Tejada/Giambi/Chavez not too shabby.