Was ERod too much for Andrew Miller

[DrungoHazewood]

I think the differences in opinion stem from the fact that you view the playoffs as a veritable crap shoot. Your wish list for Baltimore seems to be "put together a team that will make the playoffs and take your chances." Is that about right? I am not saying it's an incorrect way to look at things, mind you.

Yes, that's spot on. Any way you look at it, no team, not the best in history, is more than 25-30% chance at getting through the playoffs.

Some FO members look at that philosophy and see the reality embedded in it (history has shown us many many WS winners that were not the "best team"). But they still elect to try and make incremental changes to put their team in the best possible situation to take full advantage of every possible situation they might be faced with along the way. You can't prepare for everything, so different folks put emphasis on different areas.

I think it might come down to what you have invested in the season. Fans want a team to win the World Series. For a front office, a World Series makes your career. It's your life. I don't think someone like Beane is worried about his ability to adjust in the future. He may end up short of a World Series and down some big assets, but I have trouble faulting him for aggressive moves, even if it only moves your playoff percentage needle 1%. That won't matter if Samardzija and Lester happen to throw back to back shutouts in the playoffs. It's not an outcome you can depend on, but the chance for that outcome is every bit as real as the chance that Addison Russell becomes a 3 WAR player by 2016.

I think that Beane and other GMs aren't wrong in thinking that way, putting that much emphasis on trying to build a World Series team. But I think even they know that most of what happens in the playoffs is out of their hands. I doubt Billy has done a 180 on this. He's just decided that he's in a situation where he has a strong team and he's trying to make it stronger even if he's not likely to win it all and it'll cost him later. He has a long term contract, and he knows he will never be unemployed, so he's not terribly worried about the state of the 2016 A's.

[PA724_Oriole]

Your argument now is that quantitative risk assessments are the same as random guys throwing out opinions? You're looking at a franchise worth $100s of millions, talking about what to do with its key assets, and your analysis is "screw the numbers, forget thinking through this in any detail, let's frickin' go for it!"

Wrong. What I'm saying is. Even if the Os acquired Clayton Kershaw Mike Trout and Miggy the numbers still wouldnt have escalated as much and therefore wouldnt be a true barometer have how well the team actually improved.

[Stotle]

I would say that Keith Law is much more bullish on Rodriquez than anyone else I've ever talked to. I don't know one scout that likes his slider or his fastball command. They can both improve of course, but they are concerns. Also, it's misleading to say the guy is throwing 96 MPH. He sits 91-93 and will touch 94-95 on occasion. Perhaps he dropped a 96 on a hot gun but to say he throws 96 is being disingenuous.

Saying that, perhaps he was the best prospect sent and perhaps he is a top 100 prospect in KLaw's eyes. Regardless, look at how many "top 100" prospects flamed out. Zach Davies continues to out perform E-Rod yet you don't hear KLaw talk about him at all.

I'm not speaking one way or another on Keith's evaluative capabilities, but the quote in Weams' post is Melewski citing a Baseball America piece, with the actual quote coming from an AL scout. So, to be clear, you are calling the scout quoted by BA disingenuous and not Keith.

[DrungoHazewood]

Wrong. What I'm saying is. Even if the Os acquired Clayton Kershaw Mike Trout and Miggy the numbers still wouldnt have escalated as much and therefore wouldnt be a true barometer have how well the team actually improved.

And what I'm saying is that the numbers are real. If the O's had acquired Kershaw, Trout, and Cabrera they'd still be facing 3:1 or worse odds of winning the World Series.

[Stotle]

Yes, that's spot on. Any way you look at it, no team, not the best in history, is more than 25-30% chance at getting through the playoffs.

I think that Beane and other GMs aren't wrong in thinking that way, putting that much emphasis on trying to build a World Series team. But I think even they know that most of what happens in the playoffs is out of their hands. I doubt Billy has done a 180 on this. He's just decided that he's in a situation where he has a strong team and he's trying to make it stronger even if he's not likely to win it all and it'll cost him later. He has a long term contract, and he knows he will never be unemployed, so he's not terribly worried about the state of the 2016 A's.

I think it's more emotional than that. When it's your club, you never want to be in a situation where you feel like maybe your team was the club with a 40% to make it out of the playoffs (favorite?) and you didn't do everything you could to make it happen. If Oakland were a weaker club, I don't think you see Beane necessarily make these moves. I believe HE believes he might have the best team in baseball, and he wants to do everything he can to maximize their opportunity to win, because this is almost never going to be the case with their payroll limitations.

[PA724_Oriole]

Wrong answer.

You make trades based on calculations on how it can help your team improve.

So you're telling me that if the numbers stated we would be worse had we traded Lough for Price straight up, you wouldn't do it?

Ppls predictions of our playoff odds are as useless as our opinions on trades. They pretty much mean didly squat.

[PA724_Oriole]

And what I'm saying is that the numbers are real. If the O's had acquired Kershaw, Trout, and Cabrera they'd still be facing 3:1 or worse odds of winning the World Series.

They might be real. But it doesn't mean the numbers dictate what actually happens on the field.

[PA724_Oriole]

All im saying is that the road to the WS just got that much tougher based on what other teams did and what the Os didnt.

If you disagree with that then this argument/debate is ppl arguing for the sake of arguing.

And if you agree then you somewhat have to agree that making a trade for Price or Lester would have greatly increased our chances.

The whole.thing comes down to, you don't like the rush of losing Bundy for Price or Lester. Whereas I think pretty much the opposite.

And I think its fair to say no matter how much of and what we ttpe, no ones opinions are changing.

[Stotle]

Keith Law in a nutshell:

-When the O's trade away a minor leaguer: "They really lost a good prospect here."

-When the O's acquire a minor leaguer: "He's okay, but he's not on my top 100."

I mean, am I wrong?

Yes. That's silly.

[PA724_Oriole]

I think it's more emotional than that. When it's your club, you never want to be in a situation where you feel like maybe your team was the club with a 40% to make it out of the playoffs (favorite?) and you didn't do everything you could to make it happen. If Oakland were a weaker club, I don't think you see Beane necessarily make these moves. I believe HE believes he might have the best team in baseball, and he wants to do everything he can to maximize their opportunity to win, because this is almost never going to be the case with their payroll limitations.

I agree with this abd feel the Os should have been in the same boat.

[Redskins Rick]

Keith Law in a nutshell:

-When the O's trade away a minor leaguer: "They really lost a good prospect here."

-When the O's acquire a minor leaguer: "He's okay, but he's not on my top 100."

I mean, am I wrong?

The man is not one that I turn to for educated and accurate analysis.

[Stotle]

All im saying is that the road to the WS just got that much tougher based on what other teams did and what the Os didnt.

If you disagree with that then this argument/debate is ppl arguing for the sake of arguing.

And if you agree then you somewhat have to agree that making a trade for Price or Lester would have greatly increased our chances.

The whole.thing comes down to, you don't like the rush of losing Bundy for Price or Lester. Whereas I think pretty much the opposite.

And I think its fair to say no matter how much of and what we ttpe, no ones opinions are changing.

I don't think it is debatable that Baltimore would be better off not facing Lester or Price in the playoffs. The counter argument is that in such a small sample size absolutely anything can happen. Saunders beat Darvish heads-up in the play-in game two years ago. If you let me choose a starter I'd choose Darvish every time, and I would be out of the playoffs.

[Redskins Rick]

I don't think it is debatable that Baltimore would be better off not facing Lester or Price in the playoffs. The counter argument is that in such a small sample size absolutely anything can happen. Saunders beat Darvish heads-up in the play-in game two years ago. If you let me choose a starter I'd choose Darvish every time, and I would be out of the playoffs.

I remember many a poster in OH not very happy with Buck, when he announced Saunders would start again Darvish for the play-in game.

[Stotle]

I remember many a poster in OH not very happy with Buck, when he announced Saunders would start again Darvish for the play-in game.

I am sure. But understand the same odds Drungo is quoting are the odds that say Buck isn't brilliant for starting Saunders, he made a decision he thought might sway things a couple percentage points and it ended up working out. Lucky. Not in a "gosh look what I found way", but as in a coin flip.

[Gofannon]

Yes, that's spot on. Any way you look at it, no team, not the best in history, is more than 25-30% chance at getting through the playoffs.

I think that Beane and other GMs aren't wrong in thinking that way, putting that much emphasis on trying to build a World Series team. But I think even they know that most of what happens in the playoffs is out of their hands. I doubt Billy has done a 180 on this. He's just decided that he's in a situation where he has a strong team and he's trying to make it stronger even if he's not likely to win it all and it'll cost him later. He has a long term contract, and he knows he will never be unemployed, so he's not terribly worried about the state of the 2016 A's.

If you look back at the Moneyball heyday, for all of the credit Beane received about emphasizing OBP and utilizing the Scott Hattebergs of the world, the one constant was Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito.

This doesn't seem like a 180 to me at all. It seems like Beane trying to get a Hudson/Mulder/Zito-like rotation for the rest of the season and the playoffs and letting the chips fall from there.