Foolish Baseball - Earl Weaver Played Moneyball before Moneyball

[ScGO's]

Didn't see this posted.  This is a new episode done by Foolish Baseball, a baseball Youtuber who uses an 8-bit animation style.  Some entertainment while in the void.

 

 

[LA2]

I really enjoyed that on this annoyingly shut-in day in Brooklyn. It implies that the motto should have actually been "OBP, DRS, BABIP, and 3-Run Homers."

[BRobinsonfan]

This is great!  Loved the analysis of Earl Weaver's "ProtoMoneyBall."  I remember reading that he kept 3x5 cards with every player's performance against every other pitcher he had faced in order to give him the best advantage when choosing a line-up or making a substitution or putting in a pinch hitter.  

[Redskins Rick]

28 minutes ago, LA2 said:

I really enjoyed that on this annoyingly shut-in day in Brooklyn. It implies that the motto should have actually been "OBP, DRS, BABIP, and 3-Run Homers."

dont forget walks, Earl loved the walks.

[Tony-OH]

Outstanding video, thanks for sharing. This video did a few things that I loved.
1) It showed exactly how smart and run the Orioles were on the field under Weaver's run as manager (69-82)
2) It found a way to highlight one of the worse managerial decision on the game when Buck brought in Jimenez in that Toronto game.

Imagine that, OBP, good defense up the middle, along with a couple of ace pitchers, and using your best relievers in high leverage situations is a great recipe for success.

[Redskins Rick]

7 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Outstanding video, thanks for sharing. This video did a few things that I loved.
1) It showed exactly how smart and run the Orioles were on the field under Weaver's run as manager (69-82)
2) It found a way to highlight one of the worse managerial decision on the game when Buck brought in Jimenez in that Toronto game.

Imagine that, OBP, good defense up the middle, along with a couple of ace pitchers, and using your best relievers in high leverage situations is a great recipe for success.

Who was the brain child that built this team, nothing against Weaver, he  knew the game better than most.

Im sure if you look deep enough you will also see Earl blunders, and none of us are prefect. I seem to recall my Buddy livid at Earl of the 69 WS loss, but I think they just ran into a hotter team.

 

[Tony-OH]

11 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Who was the brain child that built this team, nothing against Weaver, he  knew the game better than most.

Im sure if you look deep enough you will also see Earl blunders, and none of us are prefect. I seem to recall my Buddy livid at Earl of the 69 WS loss, but I think they just ran into a hotter team.

 

From the Fall of 1965 to 1972, Harry Dalton was the GM behind acquiring many of the players that built upon the core of players acquired by Lee MacPhail. Those guys along with Weaver probably deserve the most credit for building a winning way. When you add in Cal Ripken Sr., who was the master of the "Orioles way" once players were acquired and developed, and you have the formula for winning the most games in baseball between 1969 and 1982.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

From the Fall of 1965 to 1972, Harry Dalton was the GM behind acquiring many of the players that built upon the core of players acquired by Lee MacPhail. Those guys along with Weaver probably deserve the most credit for building a winning way. When you add in Cal Ripken Sr., who was the master of the "Orioles way" once players were acquired and developed, and you have the formula for winning the most games in baseball between 1969 and 1982.

Im only sorry that I missed most of that. I came on board when Rip was going after ROY.

Local Boy playing for local team, drew me to the team.

[LA2]

56 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

dont forget walks, Earl loved the walks.

Yes--implied in OBP (the video pretty much treats OBP as a BB stat).

[BohKnowsBmore]

As it pertains to the Moneyball concept, Earl was also a huge proponent of platoons. Using imperfect players in situations to which their skills fit well, rather than jack-of-all/master-of-none types, thus maximizing production out of his squad.

A good article to complement this thread: https://sabr.org/research/1977-when-earl-weaver-became-earl-weaver

[Redskins Rick]

16 hours ago, LA2 said:

Yes--implied in OBP (the video pretty much treats OBP as a BB stat).

In the video, it showed how many more walks they had over the entire league for the decade, which I thought was pretty significant.

[scbalt52]

20 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Outstanding video, thanks for sharing. This video did a few things that I loved.
1) It showed exactly how smart and run the Orioles were on the field under Weaver's run as manager (69-82)
2) It found a way to highlight one of the worse managerial decision on the game when Buck brought in Jimenez in that Toronto game.

Imagine that, OBP, good defense up the middle, along with a couple of ace pitchers, and using your best relievers in high leverage situations is a great recipe for success.

I haven't watched the video yet. But I think Buck was saving Britton for a closing role we just never got to that situation. If you say he should have came in when Jimenez did, wouldn't you have brought him in earlier in the game already and he wouldn't have been available to pitch? That is what I don't get about the Britton argument. Why bring him in the 11th when you didn't bring him in the 10th, 9th, 8th. If you aren't waiting for a closing situation then he already would have pitched and been unavailable. Which to me, is no different than choosing not to bring him in - outside of the fact that you still have him should you get into the situation to close out the win like he had all year.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, scbalt52 said:

I haven't watched the video yet. But I think Buck was saving Britton for a closing role we just never got to that situation. If you say he should have came in when Jimenez did, wouldn't you have brought him in earlier in the game already and he wouldn't have been available to pitch? That is what I don't get about the Britton argument. Why bring him in the 11th when you didn't bring him in the 10th, 9th, 8th. If you aren't waiting for a closing situation then he already would have pitched and been unavailable. Which to me, is no different than choosing not to bring him in - outside of the fact that you still have him should you get into the situation to close out the win like he had all year.

They used really, really good relievers before Ubaldo.  Guys who had been pitching in relief and doing a great job all season.

Yes you could have used Britton earlier but at least we had guys out there in roles they had excelled in all year, pitching late innings in a tight game.

Ubaldo was primarily a starter and was, despite a good September, not nearly as good as the guys who had preceded him.  It's one thing not to use the best reliever in baseball in a tie game in the 8th and 9th when you have the likes of O'Day and Brach out there in situations they had pitched in all year.  But to hand the fate of the season to Duensing and Ubaldo while leaving the beat pitcher in baseball sitting on the bench is totally unforgivable and nothing is ever going to change my mind on that.

[Tony-OH]

3 hours ago, scbalt52 said:

I haven't watched the video yet. But I think Buck was saving Britton for a closing role we just never got to that situation. If you say he should have came in when Jimenez did, wouldn't you have brought him in earlier in the game already and he wouldn't have been available to pitch? That is what I don't get about the Britton argument. Why bring him in the 11th when you didn't bring him in the 10th, 9th, 8th. If you aren't waiting for a closing situation then he already would have pitched and been unavailable. Which to me, is no different than choosing not to bring him in - outside of the fact that you still have him should you get into the situation to close out the win like he had all year.

Holy actual smokes, there are still people out there who bought into Buck's awful reasoning.

Well, I know we don't have a lot to discuss right now, but wow, I really forgot that you people exist!

When you options are Jimenez and Britton left, you go to Brotton, hope you get the lead, then you run out Britton for a second inning to close. This whole closers can only pitch one inning no matter what has been squashed many years before and since Buck's awful decision. Buck's slave to his opinion that closers can only pitch one inning and in closer situations potentially cost us that ballgame.

We've beaten this horse 1000 times and only the most ardent Buck apologist still can make what they believe is a valid argument for bringing in his worse pitcher during the heart of the lineup instead of the best pitcher in baseball that year.

[scbalt52]

41 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Holy actual smokes, there are still people out there who bought into Buck's awful reasoning.

Well, I know we don't have a lot to discuss right now, but wow, I really forgot that you people exist!

When you options are Jimenez and Britton left, you go to Brotton, hope you get the lead, then you run out Britton for a second inning to close. This whole closers can only pitch one inning no matter what has been squashed many years before and since Buck's awful decision. Buck's slave to his opinion that closers can only pitch one inning and in closer situations potentially cost us that ballgame.

We've beaten this horse 1000 times and only the most ardent Buck apologist still can make what they believe is a valid argument for bringing in his worse pitcher during the heart of the lineup instead of the best pitcher in baseball that year.

Sure, he could pitch two shutout innings. I don't know if that wins the game though. Then you go to Ubaldo and might get the same result. Britton could've blown the game too. It's fine to bring him in the 11th, I just think you would've brought him in sooner then. I just don't think what happened was a wrong or bad decision. But yes it turned out horribly. If only we could've scored a run in any of those innings so Britton could've (hopefully) done what his job is.

Honestly I wasn't even considering bringing in Britton when Ubaldo came in. I would've done the same thing. I was shocked at the reaction it got.