Billy Beane's New Moneyball strategy

[allstar1579]

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?

I think an important factor in "Moneyball".

[BaltimoreTerp]

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

I suggest you go back and remove all references to Billy Beane in your posts. You are using every real and cartoonish attack on Beane over the years to try and defend him. It's hysterical.

[TGO]

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

Yes, relying on one year of UZR is dangerous. It may take three or so seasons for UZR to be valuable as a predictive tool.

With that being said, Crisp was 31 this year and played more games than he had in any season since 2007. It's not implausible that he had a bad year defensively. Whether or not it's part of a trend is the issue. And it may well be. Defense, particularly the range portion of it that is so important in CF, has a tendency to decline precipitously with age. It "peaks early."

[TakebackOPACY]

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

I gave this thread 4-stars.

In part I was just being a smart ass to LJ. In part I appreciate this: In the last string of posts I read from mikegallo, he talked down to other posters. In this thread when his views were challenged, he stayed respectful. He may even feel like there's a double-standard if he feels others talked down to him (though it was all about the content of the post and not about the poster, so all good there). In part I think some posts have been worth the read; particularly Stotle's recap and response to the OP. So even though I think much of the OP was off-base, it's driven an interesting convo.

[mikegallo]

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?

Really Really well said stotle...Now I would admit the hole premise of the grand plan is somewhat of a stretch and by no means a factual statement...just speculation by me...

But if I am Beane what better way to start a real sustainable system of talent then developing ideal conditions for the most valuable asset in getting talent(young long term contracted pitching) knowinng his advantage in doing this (oakland ballpark) which is all based on outfield dimensions knowing all infields are the same.

An outfield of Coco crisp and David Dejeusus is most likely a plus d outfield...which in turn would help a guy like Gio who already has been through couple of teams a much better chnce to develop into an asset which could net many high ceiling prospects...

Now most of my op is based on speculation but it wouldnt surprise me for a guy like beane to attempt an out side the box rebuild which gets me back to the orioles...

We never even attempt anything outside the box which is a shame and the only way for teams at such a disadvantage as us and the As to have a chance..

[mikegallo]

I tend to agree. He hasn't had the player development success of a team like Tampa, but once the guys get to Oakland, I think he maximizes them very well.

I think the inefficiency he is actually tapping into now is ingenious. I think he believes that young pitchers who are just in or about to enter their arbitration years are overvalued and can bring back more than they are worth. I think he has done just that with the last two big trades. I'm jealous as hell that he pulled off those trades.

Beane may continue to not win at a rate to be the top dog, but he is doing almost all the right stuff to get his team as far as it can go. He is simply at a giant disadvantage from a payroll perspective and that is hard to overcome. The Rays have been almost perfect at it for over 6 years now, they've had more good luck than bad in the percentage plays IMO, and they are still underdogs every season.

I agree completely and there is no doubt that he is doing what you said...what is in doubt is that he tried to create ideal conditions to develop theses guys.

Other posters have used d stats to create those ideal conditions and what I have to say to these posters assuming he was planing on using the strategy of trading young pitching that you outlined is this:

Why wouldn't beane try to create ideal conditions for these guys to thrive in (Defense) and do you trust one year of UZR over Beane doing whats best to cultivate his own assets?

[Lucky Jim]

Yes, relying on one year of UZR is dangerous. It may take three or so seasons for UZR to be valuable as a predictive tool.

With that being said, Crisp was 31 this year and played more games than he had in any season since 2007. It's not implausible that he had a bad year defensively. Whether or not it's part of a trend is the issue. And it may well be. Defense, particularly the range portion of it that is so important in CF, has a tendency to decline precipitously with age. It "peaks early."

Right. Also UZR's sub-standard reliability single player-years (i.e., at a single data point) is well-known. How that translates to a team context is less clear. UZR seems to have accurately identified the difference in the Rays as a losing squad and a winning squad - it captured their single-year uptick in defensive efficiency.

I don't trust it, certainly - not exclusively, and not as anything but a rough approximation. But it still remains more viable than nebulous references to 'scouts' and reputation. I mean, UZR aside, the poster still hasn't addressed why this awesome defense led to equivalent ERA and FIP/xFIP. That has nothing to do with single-year metrics.

I mean, do we assume that this amazing defense only revealed itself when Gio was pitching?

[JERSEYORIOLE]

Billy Beane is probably a bright guy and yes creative. But lets be honest. He can be creative because no one cares what he does. They are last in attendance and the fan base is not very strong. No one cares when he fails. Talk about no preassure. It is probably the best GM job in baseball. He has won nothing the past 5 years and continues to be called a genius. Id like to see him in a large market. He would never get away with being this " creative".

[Lucky Jim]

Why wouldn't beane try to create ideal conditions for these guys to thrive in (Defense) and do you trust one year of UZR over Beane doing whats best to cultivate his own assets?

Wait, so now the argument goes something like this: Beane is a genius because he is using defense to drive up value. We know that Beane is using defense to drive up value because he is a genius.

[Enjoy Terror]

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.

Haha, man...

DD just reassigned six pro scouts because he thought that statistics are more than enough to predict future performance of established veterans; scouts can only see and judge things based on a game or two. Then he went out and hired a statistician.

Are you joking?

[Lucky Jim]

I gave this thread 4-stars.

In part I was just being a smart ass to LJ. In part I appreciate this: In the last string of posts I read from mikegallo, he talked down to other posters. In this thread when his views were challenged, he stayed respectful. He may even feel like there's a double-standard if he feels others talked down to him (though it was all about the content of the post and not about the poster, so all good there). In part I think some posts have been worth the read; particularly Stotle's recap and response to the OP. So even though I think much of the OP was off-base, it's driven an interesting convo.

I'm bored and a bit hungover, so being a feisty devil's advocate. Of course, I haven't called anyone or -thing "dumb" in this thread. So, I guess "respectful" has its limits.

[Stotle]

Really Really well said stotle...Now I would admit the hole premise of the grand plan is somewhat of a stretch and by no means a factual statement...just speculation by me...

But if I am Beane what better way to start a real sustainable system of talent then developing ideal conditions for the most valuable asset in getting talent(young long term contracted pitching) knowinng his advantage in doing this (oakland ballpark) which is all based on outfield dimensions knowing all infields are the same.

An outfield of Coco crisp and David Dejeusus is most likely a plus d outfield...which in turn would help a guy like Gio who already has been through couple of teams a much better chnce to develop into an asset which could net many high ceiling prospects...

Now most of my op is based on speculation but it wouldnt surprise me for a guy like beane to attempt an out side the box rebuild which gets me back to the orioles...

We never even attempt anything outside the box which is a shame and the only way for teams at such a disadvantage as us and the As to have a chance..

I don't buy that Beane decided to try and build a defense to drive up value in order to flip his assets. I mean, he moves Cahill for a package of prospects that really isn't "many high ceiling prospects". It's one high ceiling arm in Parker, a couple potential relief arms and a 4th outfielder. He's hoping Parker eventually replaces Cahill, with a chance he surpasses his performance. He doesn't care about the two years or so it might take Parker to get there, because he's essentially punting on the next two seasons.

Cahill is YOUNG and improving. Parker is still returning from significant surgery and is likely a few years off from mid-rotation to front-end MLB production (if he ever gets there). This move seems like a money-saving move while planning for Oakland's next reasonable window for competition.

Gio's deal has a little more upside in numbers, but the best piece (Cole) is several years away. As with the Reds deal to the Padres, the Nationals dealt from general areas of depth, so the fact that the overpaid some is less of an issue. Kudos to Beane for 1) understanding Oakland could not compete near term and moving to make the team cheaper and better prepared for 2014ish, and 2) finding a partner that could afford to give a little more for his asset.

[Enjoy Terror]

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

Wouldn't FIP more or less solve the issue of 1 and 2, taking the defense out of the equation?

[Stotle]

Wouldn't FIP more or less solve the issue of 1 and 2, taking the defense out of the equation?

I guess it depends on how much value you assign to FIP in evaluating a player.

[TakebackOPACY]

I'm bored and a bit hungover, so being a feisty devil's advocate.

Well now I have to be careful not to derail this '4-star' thread ... though I'm leaving soon to work on getting a yuletide hangover of my own. I thought your posts were right on... just thought they were "feisty" enough for the OP to get defensive instead of hearing what you had to say. He might not know what others know, which is that you'd like nothing better than for him to come back strong with a compelling argument. I had to give him some credit for cleaning up his act a little bit; and there's the underlying point that would make an O's fan make that OP in the first place: Our guys haven't been very creative or aggressive and Billy Beane is that.

Of course, I haven't called anyone or -thing "dumb" in this thread. So, I guess "respectful" has its limits.

Yeah I saw that. Point taken. It doesn't read too poorly though.