Billy Beane's New Moneyball strategy

[Lucky Jim]

I really would take those one year numbers with a grain of salt alot of guys on that roster are known for there D and the year before Oakland by the numbers had really good team D for instance Coco Crisp has a negative UZR -5

While a guy like KK is only a 1.2 UZR while hes supposed to be an all glove guy....Like keith law an others say many times a public avalible d stat has almost no value at all

Oh, I see. Reputation is your metric. Awesome. Is there anything below one-star for a thread?

[OsLuvrInKy]

Yeah but Beane has shown a constant ability to evolve, as you say his old defense policy was dead wrong and now he is one of the industry leaders in team D. He clearly is much better than anything our team has had.

Have to call on the first part unless you can show me that the stats that are out there are wrong.

As to the red underlined statement that is wrong in oh so many ways. Now if you are talking about recent history I would have to agree but your statement comes across as "ever had". The Orioles used to be one of the best at teaching D. It was one of the fundamentals of the Oriole way.

[mikegallo]

Lol wow if you think that one year of UZR is better than years of guys in the game who know the game much better than any of us is legit than I guess we can just fire all our front office guys and go of fangraphs...

No need for game tape we have fan graphs...Scouts see ya....Managers? who needs em....we got fangraphs.

[mikegallo]

let me finish that statement anything we had in the last ten years

[Austin]

Lol wow if you think that one year of UZR is better than years of guys in the game who know the game much better than any of us is legit than I guess we can just fire all our front office guys and go of fangraphs...

No need for game tape we have fan graphs...Scouts see ya....Managers? who needs em....we got fangraphs.

This isn't a good way to win an argument. Provide statistics that back up your claims or else no one will take you seriously.

[Hank Scorpio]

It's not some huge secret that young pitching is valuable.

I think Beane is a good GM but I don't bow to the altar, so to speak.

[Lucky Jim]

Lol wow if you think that one year of UZR is better than years of guys in the game who know the game much better than any of us is legit than I guess we can just fire all our front office guys and go of fangraphs...

No need for game tape we have fan graphs...Scouts see ya....Managers? who needs em....we got fangraphs.

No one is throwing "scouts" out the window - but scouts - who see only a handful of games in a given year - aren't in any way reliable indicator of performance over a 162 game season.

UZR has its flaws. You know what is more deeply flawed? Arguments based on a wholesale lack of evidence.

[TakebackOPACY]

I never assumed the rebuild will work read the rest of the sentence you bolded which I say if the rebuild works.....And of course he was trying to win with theses players but he saw he needed much more so went with plan B trade thoses players.

Basically he used an undervauled asset (D) and used it to turn into the most sought asset in the game(young pitching), then saw that his teams hill to contention is even more steep for so went to plan b use these huge assets to jump start a new rebuild.

I just wish anyone in our front office could show any sort of breakthrough in how they build there club, which is something Beana seems to do every few years.

I agree strongly with the two points bolded above. Duquette was a pretty bold and creative guy in his previous MLB jobs. I'm not jumping on his bandwagon but I'm willing to give him a chance. Like Beane, he definitely wasn't afraid to make a move. With the Rangers and Angels, though, it looks like Beane is finding himself more and more up against the same things were up against. I agree that the A's have been much more creative than the Orioles concerning how to compete in their division. As an Orioles fan, I guess it's easy to wish we had that going for us. But if you were an A's fan, you'd have different gripes.

Of course the O's GM position should be a more coveted position than the A's position. But it isn't. Now it can be said that it isn't because we compete in the AL East. But we all know it was a coveted position when Gillick took it. And it hasn't been the premiere position it should be since Gillick left, unwilling to endure working for Angelos any longer.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Lol wow if you think that one year of UZR is better than years of guys in the game who know the game much better than any of us is legit than I guess we can just fire all our front office guys and go of fangraphs...

No need for game tape we have fan graphs...Scouts see ya....Managers? who needs em....we got fangraphs.

The irony in this post is almost suffocating.

[TakebackOPACY]

No one is throwing "scouts" out the window - but scouts - who see only a handful of games in a given year - aren't in any way reliable indicator of performance over a 162 game season.

UZR has its flaws. You know what is more deeply flawed? Arguments based on a wholesale lack of evidence.

I think the spirit of where mikegallo is coming from is this: "I just wish anyone in our front office could show any sort of breakthrough in how they build their club, which is something Beane seems to do every few years."

We can all relate to that feeling, no?

[mikegallo]

This isn't a good way to win an argument. Provide statistics that back up your claims or else no one will take you seriously.

Stats are not the end all be all....When is comes to one year of UZR too tell me a guy like Coco Crisp is a bad D guy is a joke...Now if he had three years in a row of bad UZR like Adam Jones then i would proably agree with it

Look at 2010 Mark Reynolds was a plus defender by UZR so going by fangraphs he must be good then we all saw how bad he was in 2011 and the stats back it up...

I just think to disregard a players rep completely in favor of one year of UZR is dumb....Now I would be the first one to say that some reps are just dumb but you can just disregard all of them in favor of one year of UZR

[SrMeowMeow]

I think Billy Beane has gotten more out of his resources than any other GM in baseball. I'm a huge fan.

[Hank Scorpio]

Stats are not the end all be all....When is comes to one year of UZR too tell me a guy like Coco Crisp is a bad D guy is a joke...Now if he had three years in a row of bad UZR like Adam Jones then i would proably agree with it

Look at 2010 Mark Reynolds was a plus defender by UZR so going by fangraphs he must be good then we all saw how bad he was in 2011 and the stats back it up...

I just think to disregard a players rep completely in favor of one year of UZR is dumb....Now I would be the first one to say that some reps are just dumb but you can just disregard all of them in favor of one year of UZR

Good organizations use as many resources as they can combine to make a final evaluation.

Eyes are not the end all be all, either.

[Stotle]

I think the opening post, if I am understanding, is really trying to say:

1. Beane has focused his attention on defense

2. The good defense is allowing pitchers to provide production that outdistances their actual skill set

3. Beane is identifying these players in #2 above and moving them for multiple cost-controlled assets

Is that correct? I think you can probably find #1 debatable and certainly #2 debatable. I think #3 is probably right, in that Beane is not shy about moving players if he thinks the return he gets will be a net gain for the organization. That point, however, stands on its own.

I don't see a complicated plan to obtain assets that he knows he'll be able boost in value due to defense, and then spin off to someone else. Defense is being studied and measured by many, if not all, clubs at this point. Some grand plan would assume that Oakland has a monopoly on the information that defense is contributing to pitcher performance. That isn't the case. Further, if we are to believe scouts over statistical metrics in determining defensive value, why wouldn't we take scouting over statistical analysis in Washington's determination that Gonzalez is worth that prospect package, and not simply a product of his defense and pitcher-friendly stadium in Oakland?

[Lucky Jim]

I think the opening post, if I am understanding, is really trying to say:

1. Beane has focused his attention on defense

2. The good defense is allowing pitchers to provide production that outdistances their actual skill set

3. Beane is identifying these players in #2 above and moving them for multiple cost-controlled assets

Is that correct? I think you can probably find #1 debatable and certainly #2 debatable. I think #3 is probably right, in that Beane is not shy about moving players if he thinks the return he gets will be a net gain for the organization. That point, however, stands on its own.

I don't see a complicated plan to obtain assets that he knows he'll be able boost in value due to defense, and then spin off to someone else. Defense is being studied and measured by many, if not all, clubs at this point. Some grand plan would assume that Oakland has a monopoly on the information that defense is contributing to pitcher performance. That isn't the case. Further, if we are to believe scouts over statistical metrics in determining defensive value, why wouldn't we take scouting over statistical analysis in Washington's determination that Gonzalez is worth that prospect package, and not simply a product of his defense and pitcher-friendly stadium in Oakland?

Right. Cogently stated.