4/12 GDT Bum @ Rox

[msgkings322]

I saw that, but wasn't everyone predicting the Nationals to improve over last year? Now the A's or O's, THAT would have been impressive.

Both are turning out to be the big surprises for 2012 as LA fades.

Lots of folks like to poke holes in the myth of Billy Beane from Moneyball, how his 2002 team success was less about the unconventional guy or two he had than the really good pitching of the Big 3 and an MVP year from Tejada. And there's merit to those arguments.

But for 2012 I don't see how Beane can't be given major props. GM of the year for sure.

 

[SF11704]

I think every year brings with it a new set of surprises. Some good and some not so good. All depends on your vantage point. For me the O's are a big surprise but then again I know little about them or the AL in general. I always thought the Nats had some really good pieces. What I didn't see was the Philth playing as poorly as they did. My focus was on them. Never really saw the Nats challenging them.
I still think back to 2010 and bask in our WS Championship. But I'm also a realist to some extent. As good as we were (or at least what we think) we were also handed a 10 game losing streak by the Padres when it counted most. They were playing decent ball until that happened. If they play 500 ball for that same period then we don't catch them and 2010 has a very different look. I still think we would have taken the wildcard before Atlanta but things wouldn't have been exactly the same. Maybe we are still WS Champions but the path would have been different. Karma plays a big part IMHO. Sometimes things just start breaking in your favor. You just have to be in a position to capitalize on it. LA fading is just fine with me...... I just hope we can take this all the way to the 2012 WS title.

 

[calsnowskier]

I think every year brings with it a new set of surprises. Some good and some not so good. All depends on your vantage point. For me the O's are a big surprise but then again I know little about them or the AL in general. I always thought the Nats had some really good pieces. What I didn't see was the Philth playing as poorly as they did. My focus was on them. Never really saw the Nats challenging them.
I still think back to 2010 and bask in our WS Championship. But I'm also a realist to some extent. As good as we were (or at least what we think) we were also handed a 10 game losing streak by the Padres when it counted most. They were playing decent ball until that happened. If they play 500 ball for that same period then we don't catch them and 2010 has a very different look. I still think we would have taken the wildcard before Atlanta but things wouldn't have been exactly the same. Maybe we are still WS Champions but the path would have been different. Karma plays a big part IMHO. Sometimes things just start breaking in your favor. You just have to be in a position to capitalize on it. LA fading is just fine with me...... I just hope we can take this all the way to the 2012 WS title.

I am NOT a believer of the whole SD collapse theory. SD had not lost more than 3 in a row before that stretch. That is just as mind-blowingly whacked as the 10-game skid, but no one talks about that. How about the Giants and their 2 7-game skids? Nope, not important.

The season is 162 games for a reason. The difference between the best team in the league and the worst team in the league is soooo miniscule that you need a marathon to determine the best teams.

 

[gp956]

Both are turning out to be the big surprises for 2012 as LA fades.

Lots of folks like to poke holes in the myth of Billy Beane from Moneyball, how his 2002 team success was less about the unconventional guy or two he had than the really good pitching of the Big 3 and an MVP year from Tejada. And there's merit to those arguments.

But for 2012 I don't see how Beane can't be given major props. GM of the year for sure.

Not really. If you can eek out a couple of extra wins by exploiting market inefficiencies, that doesnt imply the other wins were unimportant, i.e if the market gives you 90 wins, then the marginal value of a couple more wins is extremely high. The focus on Beane was simply Michael Lewis's expositional tool for introducing the concept of market inefficiencies - in the context of baseball as revealed by statistical analysis. And, of course, those market inefficiency were bouyed by all manner of cognitive biases, as the book notes. At its core, Moneyball was really a book on economics.

As for Beane, how many times have you seen the uniquely talented but naive/ignorant protagonist used in fiction as the audience surrogate? He was used by Lewis to present the necessary facts for the audience to understand the "story", without bashing them over the head with blunt information.

 

[Stokes1931]

I am NOT a believer of the whole SD collapse theory. SD had not lost more than 3 in a row before that stretch. That is just as mind-blowingly whacked as the 10-game skid, but no one talks about that. How about the Giants and their 2 7-game skids? Nope, not important.

The season is 162 games for a reason. The difference between the best team in the league and the worst team in the league is soooo miniscule that you need a marathon to determine the best teams.

WHat?!? I thought the 2012 season was over after the third game in AZ! Now you are telling me that there's MORE to the season?

 

[SF11704]

I never said it was a collapse. It was just their time to even out the score card. The only difference was that it was very visible. Beause a team loses 10 in row doesn't actually means they collapsed. You can play well and still lose. As you yourself stated ... that hadn't lost more than 3 in a row before that. It just wasn't expected. Things happen. At that time I was probably more focued on keeping Atlanta at bay. If anything I would have thought that the last series with SD would be our chance to catch them. I never saw us entering that series with a 3 game lead. Not complaining. Just surprised. I'd also be very surprised if LA was able to catch us as well.

 

[msgkings322]

Not really. If you can eek out a couple of extra wins by exploiting market inefficiencies, that doesnt imply the other wins were unimportant, i.e if the market gives you 90 wins, then the marginal value of a couple more wins is extremely high. The focus on Beane was simply Michael Lewis's expositional tool for introducing the concept of market inefficiencies - in the context of baseball as revealed by statistical analysis. And, of course, those market inefficiency were bouyed by all manner of cognitive biases, as the book notes. At its core, Moneyball was really a book on economics.

As for Beane, how many times have you seen the uniquely talented but naive/ignorant protagonist used in fiction as the audience surrogate? He was used by Lewis to present the necessary facts for the audience to understand the "story", without bashing them over the head with blunt information.

Great points, I agree with much of this.

But no comment on my assertion that 2012 is showing Beane to be a truly talented GM? If GM's can be said to have any value over simple luck, what the A's are doing this year has to be credited in large part to him.

 

[gp956]

Great points, I agree with much of this.

But no comment on my assertion that 2012 is showing Beane to be a truly talented GM? If GM's can be said to have any value over simple luck, what the A's are doing this year has to be credited in large part to him.

I really don't know. My default position is Beane/A's got lucky. Not so much in the talent they acquired by dumping any major leaguer of value over the last couple of years, but lucky in that all these youngsters were ready to do it this year. Not that it really matters, because they'll all be gone in two years anyway.

 

[msgkings322]

I really don't know. My default position is Beane/A's got lucky. Not so much in the talent they acquired by dumping any major leaguer of value over the last couple of years, but lucky in that all these youngsters were ready to do it this year. Not that it really matters, because they'll all be gone in two years anyway.

To explore your thoughts further, couldn't we attribute almost any team's sucess to 'luck'? Once you factor out teams that can just buy up every good player (and even that's not easy as per LA this year), the teams that win just happen to have guys 'do it that year'.

So for example, Sabean: some years he gets a guy in and he's useless (Garko, Hillenbrand, etc etc) and others they are 'lucky' successes...Pat the Bat, Cody Ross, Marco Scutaro, Angel Pagan, etc.
Some guys you draft are 'lucky' winners: Posey, Panda, MadBum, Belt, etc...some are 'unlucky' busts: Todd Linden, Jeff Bowker, Boof Bonser, etc.

I guess I'm just wondering if you think even more than I do that so much of what we observe as 'good' or 'bad' GMing is really just randomness. You make moves, some work out, some don't, if enough work out at the same time you get a ring...

As cal said in another thread, the teams are so close together in skill that you need a marathon season to separate the good from the bad. So is there any real value to GMing?

 

[gp956]

To explore your thoughts further, couldn't we attribute almost any team's sucess to 'luck'? Once you factor out teams that can just buy up every good player (and even that's not easy as per LA this year), the teams that win just happen to have guys 'do it that year'.

So for example, Sabean: some years he gets a guy in and he's useless (Garko, Hillenbrand, etc etc) and others they are 'lucky' successes...Pat the Bat, Cody Ross, Marco Scutaro, Angel Pagan, etc.
Some guys you draft are 'lucky' winners: Posey, Panda, MadBum, Belt, etc...some are 'unlucky' busts: Todd Linden, Jeff Bowker, Boof Bonser, etc.

I guess I'm just wondering if you think even more than I do that so much of what we observe as 'good' or 'bad' GMing is really just randomness. You make moves, some work out, some don't, if enough work out at the same time you get a ring...

As cal said in another thread, the teams are so close together in skill that you need a marathon season to separate the good from the bad. So is there any real value to GMing?

As a default position? Yes. That's speaking more to my ignorance about what Beane is doing - and AL baseball, in general.

 

[SF11704]

A real interesting thread. From my perspective it's a rather complicated process. Although I understand Cal's comment about a marathon season I don't really agree with it. The NYY have been in the playoffs for something like 18 of thr last 19 seasons. That team is constructed to win over a 162 game schedule. They are not on an even par with the other AL teams. I think you can plan for the long haul but you can't really predict what will happen in any one individual series. The playoffs support that. How you construct the team is where it gets interesting. You need some sort of balance between hitting, fielding and pitching. To win over a 162 game schedule you need balance. I really can't say what thet balance is though. In 2010 we proved that pitching is a real important piece. We shutdown top offense teams and scratched out wins with a meager offense. I personally feel that offense can carry you through 162 games (NYY) but without decent pitching playoffs become a real crapshoot. NYY again. Good pitching can shut them down. I think the real GMing comes in the ability to construct that balance. We had the pitching for quite sometime now. Always felt we never had the true balance in offense. If I remember correctly in 25% of our losses in 2010 we held the opposition to 3 runs or under. That's a great pitching effort that resulted in a loss. Some of our late pick-up helped that balance ... Ross, Pat the Bat .... lucky for us ... but it was the right fit.

 

[calsnowskier]

A real interesting thread. From my perspective it's a rather complicated process. Although I understand Cal's comment about a marathon season I don't really agree with it. The NYY have been in the playoffs for something like 18 of thr last 19 seasons. That team is constructed to win over a 162 game schedule. They are not on an even par with the other AL teams. I think you can plan for the long haul but you can't really predict what will happen in any one individual series. The playoffs support that. How you construct the team is where it gets interesting. You need some sort of balance between hitting, fielding and pitching. To win over a 162 game schedule you need balance. I really can't say what thet balance is though. In 2010 we proved that pitching is a real important piece. We shutdown top offense teams and scratched out wins with a meager offense. I personally feel that offense can carry you through 162 games (NYY) but without decent pitching playoffs become a real crapshoot. NYY again. Good pitching can shut them down. I think the real GMing comes in the ability to construct that balance. We had the pitching for quite sometime now. Always felt we never had the true balance in offense. If I remember correctly in 25% of our losses in 2010 we held the opposition to 3 runs or under. That's a great pitching effort that resulted in a loss. Some of our late pick-up helped that balance ... Ross, Pat the Bat .... lucky for us ... but it was the right fit.

How does this disagree with my point? Winning the 162 portion of the MLB season is TOTALLY different from trying to win 11 (or now, potentially, 12) games in the post-season.

Winning in the regular season is much more on a big-picture scale (the result of the individual game means next to nothing), and the level of opponent varies. If a player stubs his toe, he is put on the DL, and a kid/journeyman is put in his place. In the playoffs, if a guy loses a leg in an accident, he finds a way to stay in the lineup (see Nen, Robb).

 

[tzill]

IIRC, tzill was pretty early pointing out how good the Nats were.

Whatever happened to filo anyway?

I thought the Nats would be good given their SP...you know, playing real baseball and all.

But I never would've picked the O's or the A'ss.

BTW, it'll be the Rays that take the NL East I think. Hopefully, the O's can edge out the fargin' Spankees.

 

[tzill]

I guess, even though she's a syphilitic street walker with vomit on her padded bra.

I wish I could rep myself....


ALTS!! REP. STAT.

 

[SF11704]

The season is 162 games for a reason. The difference between the best team in the league and the worst team in the league is soooo miniscule that you need a marathon to determine the best teams.
I don't agree with that statement. I think some teams are built to win at a much high rate than others over 162 games. I again default to the NYY. 18-19 playoff appearances means they win and win on a consistent basis. Over a 162 game schedule they have succeeded 18 times out of 19 tries. No other team has that level of success. Once they hit the playoffs it then becomes a crapshoot. IMHO there are a subset of teams that have tried that approach. Some have been somewhat successful. Most aren't. I do feel that there are a subset of teams that clearly support your statement. These are usually the playoff teams. They are balanced and it would take a marathon to really place them in a ranked order. I just feel that some teams are much more structured for the long run than some of the others. The current LA team playing over a 162 games schedule would put up some interesting numbers in my opinion.

 

[calsnowskier]

The season is 162 games for a reason. The difference between the best team in the league and the worst team in the league is soooo miniscule that you need a marathon to determine the best teams.
I don't agree with that statement. I think some teams are built to win at a much high rate than others over 162 games. I again default to the NYY. 18-19 playoff appearances means they win and win on a consistent basis. Over a 162 game schedule they have succeeded 18 times out of 19 tries. No other team has that level of success. Once they hit the playoffs it then becomes a crapshoot. IMHO there are a subset of teams that have tried that approach. Some have been somewhat successful. Most aren't. I do feel that there are a subset of teams that clearly support your statement. These are usually the playoff teams. They are balanced and it would take a marathon to really place them in a ranked order. I just feel that some teams are much more structured for the long run than some of the others. The current LA team playing over a 162 games schedule would put up some interesting numbers in my opinion.

Just for arguments sake, I think the Braves are a better example for you. They "Built" their teams, while the Spankees bought them. To boot, the Braves were 1-12 in their 13-year run.

Again, I do not see how you do not agree with me. The Yanks (and Braves) were built to get to the playoffs, and have done a VERY good job at doing that. Then, when the series become small, they have fallen short (a "crapshoot"). Thus, the shorter format (Playoffs) proved to not reward the "better" team. Does anyone believe that the Mariners were NOT the best team in the majors in 2001?

It obviously is not this simple. My previous post explained that the strategy between the reg season and the post season are quite different. However, the playoffs are as close to a crapshoot as you can get. The goal of a GM should be to get IN TO the playoffs, and then just hope to catch some lightning.

 

[SF11704]

It obviously is not this simple. My previous post explained that the strategy between the reg season and the post season are quite different. However, the playoffs are as close to a crapshoot as you can get. The goal of a GM should be to get IN TO the playoffs, and then just hope to catch some lightning.

YES! This is exactly what I mean. I was just trying to say that baseball has its 'haves' and 'have nots'. Not all teams are created equal. I also agree that the Braves 'built' and the Yankees bought. Yanks 'crafted' by purchasing what they needed and whenever they needed it. Based on a 162 game schedule they have been successful. Based on playoff successes they haven't. I think LA is looking to use the same approach. I don't think it works all the time. You can buy talent but it may destroy the team's chemistry in the process. IMHO if you have unlimited funds you can 'purchase' quite a few of the pieces needed to win over a 162 game schedule. If you are the NYY you keep buying until you buy the correct pieces. I can remember times in the past where they had 6 or 7 starting pitchers under contract at the same time. They just kept buying until they had 4 starters that worked for them

 

[msgkings322]

I thought the Nats would be good given their SP...you know, playing real baseball and all.

But I never would've picked the O's or the A'ss.

BTW, it'll be the Rays that take the NL East I think. Hopefully, the O's can edge out the fargin' Spankees.

Not a chance, they are 4 back of two different teams with 19 to play. But they should get the wild card with that pitching. They are pretty unbalanced like we were in 2010.