Oakland - Did Billy Beane Go Too Far?

[wildcard]

They weren't going to win 90 games this year. They weren't going to win the wildcard, and they probably weren't going to win much of anything in the future relying on expensive, injured and/or mediocre pitchers.

The A's are willing to lose the battle to win the war. The O's have often been more than willing to fight to the death to claim small victories in one battle, only to be obliterated in the war. MacPhail seems to be changing that, if only somewhat.

You can't say with any certainity at all that the A's would not have won 90 this year. Frobby sighted that they were

49-41 that is a .544 pace. Over 162 games that is 88 winning games. In August and September there are teams the have given up, traded away good players, are focused on next year. Those teams are easier to beat late in the year. It is not hard to think that a team that is on a pace for 88 in July could win 90.

[Shopay]

The O's have had one of the worst pitching staffs in the bigleagues over the last few years. I think we'd all agree that the O's aren't experiencing the World Series without a ticket unless/until their pitching improves dramatically.

Projecting guys like Tillman, Arrieta, Matusz, etc. to turn that situation completely around is awfully premature. Some subset of the O's pitching prospects should develop into valuable contributors, but which ones, and how big that contribution, is purely speculative at this point. Classic case of counting unhatched chickens.

Meanwhile, the A's actually have a pretty impressive young pitching staff, led by a bunch of guys that have already had some success at the bigleague level.

This (bolded language above) is a very good point. Although, as a fan, you need to have something to dream about.

With respect to Billy Beane, he absolutely deserves some credit for what he has accomplished in Oakland. However, I struggle with how much credit he should get. The reason for this is that it's far easier to build something good in comparison to something great. My point is that the ownership in Oakland (due to financial constraints) seems to be content so long as Billy builds a competitive product. Thus, he can, and does, continually look to move viable parts of his team to get good young talent. There doesn't seem to be the pressure to get a WS ring, like exists with a lot of other teams/owners (e.g., Yanks, Red Sox, Cubs, etc.) IMO, this frees him up to make moves that a lot of other GMs can't make, or at least would require a lot of explaining to their owner and fan base. It seemed somewhat telling to me that Beane walked away from the Red Sox GM spot, one many other baseball execs would die to have, to remain with Oakland. Perhaps there is more to this decision than "meets the eye," but one has to wonder if Beane simply wasn't sure how well his methodology would work in a "win now or else" type of environment.

[davearm]

This (bolded language above) is a very good point. Although, as a fan, you need to have something to dream about.

With respect to Billy Beane, he absolutely deserves some credit for what he has accomplished in Oakland. However, I struggle with how much credit he should get. The reason for this is that it's far easier to build something good in comparison to something great. My point is that the ownership in Oakland (due to financial constraints) seems to be content so long as Billy builds a competitive product. Thus, he can, and does, continually look to move viable parts of his team to get good young talent. There doesn't seem to be the pressure to get a WS ring, like exists with a lot of other teams/owners (e.g., Yanks, Red Sox, Cubs, etc.) IMO, this frees him up to make moves that a lot of other GMs can't make, or at least would require a lot of explaining to their owner and fan base. It seemed somewhat telling to me that Beane walked away from the Red Sox GM spot, one many other baseball execs would die to have, to remain with Oakland. Perhaps there is more to this decision than "meets the eye," but one has to wonder if Beane simply wasn't sure how well his methodology would work in a "win now or else" type of environment.

One thing that comes across from Moneyball is that Beane puts enormous pressure on himself. It's suggested as the reason why he failed as a ballplayer.

He's about the last person I'd suspect of settling for the path of least resistance as far as expectations go.

[Mackus]

You can't say with any certainity at all that the A's would not have won 90 this year.

Of course you can't say it with certainty.

But, on 4th, nearly the same day, the Orioles were 44-41. You couldn't have said with certainty that the team would finish below .500, but it was far more likely than keeping up that same pace and finishing with an 84-78 record. The A's weren't certain to not have won 90 this year, but they were very likely to not have won 90, even after the 49-41 start.

Possibility and probability are not the same things. You almost always have a very, very optimistic outlook on things. Anything going well is guaranteed to keep going well, and things going badly are likely to turn around. Thats fine to have that attitude, but its just not very practical a lot of the times.

[Shopay]

One thing that comes across from Moneyball is that Beane puts enormous pressure on himself. It's suggested as the reason why he failed as a ballplayer.

He's about the last person I'd suspect of settling for the path of least resistance as far as expectations go.

You may very well be right. I just was surprised he turned down the BoSox position as those types of jobs don't come around very often.

[DrungoHazewood]

Of course you can't say it with certainty.

But, on 4th, nearly the same day, the Orioles were 44-41. You couldn't have said with certainty that the team would finish below .500, but it was far more likely than keeping up that same pace and finishing with an 84-78 record. The A's weren't certain to not have won 90 this year, but they were very likely to not have won 90, even after the 49-41 start.

Possibility and probability are not the same things. You almost always have a very, very optimistic outlook on things. Anything going well is guaranteed to keep going well, and things going badly are likely to turn around. Thats fine to have that attitude, but its just not very practical a lot of the times.

The Orioles of the past half-decade or so are perfect examples of teams that had records during some point in the season that, even at the time, didn't quite add up. You simply can't count on overachieving and great health. Smart GMs try their best to objectively assess their teams and the likelihood of them continuing to play at current levels.

They certainly don't just say "we're playing .540 ball in May, so we're gonna win 90!"

[wildcard]

The Orioles of the past half-decade or so are perfect examples of teams that had records during some point in the season that, even at the time, didn't quite add up. You simply can't count on overachieving and great health. Smart GMs try their best to objectively assess their teams and the likelihood of them continuing to play at current levels.

They certainly don't just say "we're playing .540 ball in May, so we're gonna win 90!"

Both you and Markus seem to expand into think that I was talking about the O's maintaining a winning record through the 2nd half. I didn't say that. I was talking about the A's which included both Haren and Harden at the time.

Markus while you have taken a shot at my opinion on things as being too optimistic, I will refrain from characterizing your approach. I just don't think it is a productive discussion. But I would like to know if when I predicted that the O's would win 60 this year that was too optimistic for you?

I agree it was wrong like 98% for the poster on this board but I didn't think it was optimistic at all.

[Mackus]

Both you and Markus seem to expand into think that I was talking about the O's maintaining a winning record through the 2nd half. I didn't say that. I was talking about the A's which included both Haren and Harden at the time.

Haren was already gone and Harden is always an injury risk. There certainly was a chance the A's could continue their remarkable success, but the odds were certainly against it.

Beane took the approach that the odds of his team making the playoffs this year were so slim that it wasn't worth the risk of not moving his valuable pieces for younger pieces that greatly improve their chances of competing down the road.

Trading Harden and Blanton increased the A's chances of making the playoffs in the future more than it decreased their chances of making the playoffs in 2008, IMO.

[Fan4Life]

Both you and Markus seem to expand into think that I was talking about the O's maintaining a winning record through the 2nd half. I didn't say that. I was talking about the A's which included both Haren and Harden at the time.

Markus while you have taken a shot at my opinion on things as being too optimistic, I will refrain from characterizing your approach. I just don't think it is a productive discussion. But I would like to know if when I predicted that the O's would win 60 this year that was too optimistic for you?

I agree it was wrong like 98% for the poster on this board but I didn't think it was optimistic at all.

While I understand the respect for how the A's run their organization, if PA was still the GM of our team I would completely agree. But he isn't(at least as far as we can tell) and so comparing how the O's should be run to the A's isn't reasonable to me because the A's cannot sign Tex, and Dunn, and Burnett and trade for Hardy even if they wanted to. We can. It may or may not be a prudent approach, but it is an approach that is avilable to us to suppliment our organizational guys that the A's do not have. So I suppose for how the A's have to be run, he may have done the right thing. That doesn't mean it is necesarily the right thing for us.

[Eight]

Isn't this just a point in Beane's favor? How many extra wins would Blanton and Harden have netted them over that 27 game span? Harden was great and Blanton was mediocre at best this season. Sean Gallagher wasn't a half bad replacement for those two. Even if you're really generous and give them an extra six wins over that stretch, that still puts them at only 60-57, 14 behind the Angels in the division and 7 behind the Red Sox in the Wild Card. Their playoff odds under that scenario would have to have been 2-3% at the most.

[mweb]

The Hangout loves 5-22 as long as there are young players involved.

49-41 is a .544 won percentage. If they continued that pacr until today through 119 game they would have been 65-54. That would be three games behind Boston, and one game behind the White Sox. They would be third in the Wild Card race with 7 weeks to go. Manny is gone, Walkfield is out. Boston is look for pitching. Chicago just fell out for first place.

Beane may have out smarted himself this time. Good point Frobby.

Manny was replaced by an equally good player without the attitude issues, they just got Byrd to replace Wakefield. Don't see what Chicago falling out of first place has to do with this.

Otherwise, I agree with Drungo and Mackus that the A's were very unlikely to make the playoffs.

Even if they did, a certain group of people would have ripped him if they failed to win it all, which would have been the very likely outcome.

[mweb]

Isn't this just a point in Beane's favor? How many extra wins would Blanton and Harden have netted them over that 27 game span? Harden was great and Blanton was mediocre at best this season. Sean Gallagher wasn't a half bad replacement for those two. Even if you're really generous and give them an extra six wins over that stretch, that still puts them at only 60-57, 14 behind the Angels in the division and 7 behind the Red Sox in the Wild Card. Their playoff odds under that scenario would have to have been 2-3% at the most.

Yep, great point. Gallagher has been at least as good as Blanton was, so Harden was the only real loss, and he would have pitched about 6 times during that span.

[byrdz]

Billy Beane is a genius...the end.

[orayole]

They weren't going to win 90 games this year. They weren't going to win the wildcard, and they probably weren't going to win much of anything in the future relying on expensive, injured and/or mediocre pitchers.

The A's are willing to lose the battle to win the war. The O's have often been more than willing to fight to the death to claim small victories in one battle, only to be obliterated in the war. MacPhail seems to be changing that, if only somewhat.

And the the last time the A's have won the war is.......?

Yea it's working terrific.

Not that the O's have done better but the A's will never win with this strategy without a lot of luck. And by win I mean a World Series because that's all that matters.

This (bolded language above) is a very good point. Although, as a fan, you need to have something to dream about.

With respect to Billy Beane, he absolutely deserves some credit for what he has accomplished in Oakland. However, I struggle with how much credit he should get. The reason for this is that it's far easier to build something good in comparison to something great. My point is that the ownership in Oakland (due to financial constraints) seems to be content so long as Billy builds a competitive product. Thus, he can, and does, continually look to move viable parts of his team to get good young talent. There doesn't seem to be the pressure to get a WS ring, like exists with a lot of other teams/owners (e.g., Yanks, Red Sox, Cubs, etc.) IMO, this frees him up to make moves that a lot of other GMs can't make, or at least would require a lot of explaining to their owner and fan base. It seemed somewhat telling to me that Beane walked away from the Red Sox GM spot, one many other baseball execs would die to have, to remain with Oakland. Perhaps there is more to this decision than "meets the eye," but one has to wonder if Beane simply wasn't sure how well his methodology would work in a "win now or else" type of environment.

This ^

[DrungoHazewood]

And the the last time the A's have won the war is.......?

Yea it's working terrific.

Not that the O's have done better but the A's will never win with this strategy without a lot of luck. And by win I mean a World Series because that's all that matters.

You can roll your eyes all you want but it's a fact that even the very best teams, those that win 110+ games, are no better than 1-in-3, maybe 2-in-5 chances to win the World Series once they've made the playoffs. Any two run-of-the-mill 94-win playoff teams playing each other in a short series is a coin flip. With eight teams that means an average playoff team has a 12.5% chance of winning it all. 87.5% of the time a PLAYOFF TEAM will NOT win the World Series.

Every freakin' team needs a lot of luck to win the World Series. Even the very best.

If you're going to crucify Beane for not winning the Series whenever he makes the playoffs you need to round up the GMs of the Yankees, the Twins, the Dodgers, the Giants, the Indians, the Braves, and a bunch of other teams and sacrifice them on the same I-don't-give-a-crap-about-real-life-odds altar.