Beane, how smart is he? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

jrobb83

12-23-2004, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Beane's dream is to win baseball's World Series of poker while being dealt two cards to Boston's five and the Yankees' seven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, I thought the World Series of Poker was named after that baseball series in October...

That being said, Beane did basically what he had to do. He was never gonna sign these guys to long term deals, so rather than get nothing for them he got an assortment of top prosepects, most of which are ready for the majors.

If you want to look at the reason for the trades, look at the trend in K/9 (strikeouts per nine innings) for his threee starters for the last few seasons. Zito was the only guy with a signifiant inmprovement in his K/9 rate this season. Both Mulder and Hudson had a decline in K/9 this season, and Hudson's was particularly low (and Mulders K/BB ratio also sucked this season). Rich Harden's was the highest of all of them by far, and approaching Curt Schilling territory. The strikeout rate is the largest factor Beane looks at when analyzing pitchers.

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 04:40 PM

yeah, it certainly makes the trade look better when you look at K/9. I think ATL ands STL are going to be mildly disapointed, because the "aces" they traded for, don't look like aces as much anymore. Should be interesting to see how they do next year.

I still think this hurts Oakland next year, but if everything works out for them, they should be very competitive in 2006 and for a few years on.

I am really looking forward to baseball this year, the Al West looks like another dog fight, especially with the M's greatly improving their lineup.

Ed Miller

12-23-2004, 06:19 PM

TSA,

If you haven't already, read Moneyball. Clark recommended it to me, and it's cool. It describes a lot of pigheaded, irrational thinking in baseball people that is very familiar to someone who has spent the last three years observing the same pigheaded, irrational thinkers play poker.

I'm convinced Beane is on the right track. He's obviously not infallible or anything... but his general approach to personnel decisions is very clearly the "right" one as far as I'm concerned.

sfer

12-23-2004, 06:22 PM

Michael Lewis has made a writing career out of taking "pigheaded, irrational" environments and following around people who decide to shake them up.

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 06:29 PM

Hey Ed,
Yeah I have been thinking about reading that book, purely just out of interest. I have a pretty good idea how Beane analyzes players. I am just amazed about his shrewdness though. I don't think many other GM's would make the move(s) he recently just made, because the A's potentially could have been the best team in the west next year, especially with the Rhodes for Kendall trade. Instead, he makes a trade which will def hurt his team next year(how much, I honestly can't say), but the trade also sets his team up for several years in the future. I don't know how many GM's take that risk.

He knew he wasn;t going to be able to resign those guys though, but still, you would think he would want to try and play out part of next year to gauge where his team was at before trading them. I guess that approach also has risks.

-TSC

Non_Comformist

12-23-2004, 07:00 PM

I think the popular thing to do right now is to assume that Beane is a step ahead of everyone and these traded will work out for the better. In truth we won't know for two- three years and at that time if things don't work out he will be yesterday's news and just another failed GM.

I give him credit for this though, he traded his Aces away, realizing that he wasn't going to win a world series with them, rather than letting them leave via free agency without getting anything in return. It took guts but was the correct decision and one that many GM's seem unable to make.

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I give him credit for this though, he traded his Aces away, realizing that he wasn't going to win a world series with them

[/ QUOTE ] The way this team is run though, I don't see them ever winning a WS. They will just make the playoffs and crumble again.

tolbiny

12-23-2004, 07:13 PM

I think ATL might be mildly disappointed at worst. They have a long record of picking up pitchers and getting good years out of them.

STL on the other hand has no clue as to what they are doing, and will collapse in the second half of next year (and by collapse i mean only win 85 games).

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 07:14 PM

good point about ATL, I forgot about that.

Non_Comformist

12-23-2004, 07:17 PM

It's a fair assumption given the talent that has gone through that team in the last 4-5 years.

I wonder if from a business standpoint the plan isn't simply to feild a playoff contending team with young and exciting players that fans come out and watch, while turning a profit. Which is slightly different from say the Yankees or Redsox who seem to want to win the World Series. If so, the A's business plan seems pretty smart to me but from a fans perspective it could get frustrating.

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 07:23 PM

I def think the A's philosophy is to simply make a profit. In fact, nearly every team tries to do this, and IIRC, nearly every team does this. But the difference is the management. Beane is the master at finding undervalued players, so he is able to find great bargains that will help his team win games, but they won't ever break out. The best teams in Baseball are the ones that open their wallets( wisely though ). I think someone down in Oakland needs to realize this though, especially if they want to win another title. They cannot continue with the same plan they currently use and expect to win a title and keep their fans.

Paluka

12-23-2004, 07:46 PM

I think any baseball fan who hasn't read Moneyball needs to read it tomorrow.
I think the Mulder trade was good for the A's, the Hudson trade was fine but not great. If Hudson has a sick year next year it will be because Mazzone is a master.
The only thing I find stupid about this article is that Bayless admits that he thought the Kock for Foulke trade was bad. I don't know a single knowledgeable baseball fan who didn't realize that the White Sox were absolute idiots for trading Foulke for a loser like Koch.

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I find stupid about this article is that Bayless admits that he thought the Kock for Foulke trade was bad. I don't know a single knowledgeable baseball fan who didn't realize that the White Sox were absolute idiots for trading Foulke for a loser like Koch.

[/ QUOTE ] haha, true. I am def not a Bayless fan, partly because I think he is an idiot, but, none the less, the article was interesting.

WillMagic

12-23-2004, 07:51 PM

TSC....you really have no appreciation for the short-term luck factor in baseball.

The playoffs are, in comparison to the regular season, a luck-fest. Over the last five years the A's have one of the best winning percentages in all of baseball. They've won at least 90 games in each of the five years, with 100-win seasons in 2001 and 2002. So over 700-some games they've proven themselves to be one of the best teams in baseball.

And, based on 20 games (four five-game series) where they went 8-12...you imply that they are poorly run and cannot win a WS.

Come on.

Will

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 08:01 PM

Why did the Yankees dominate the late 90's in the playoffs, while Oakland couldn't do a thing during their great stretch. Were the Yankees luckier?

come on, you as a poker player should know luck is bull [censored]. If you didn't know that yet, you really should.

I have spend countless hours arguing with people about this, I guess I could go again.

ClaytonN

12-23-2004, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Beane's dream is to win baseball's World Series of poker while being dealt two cards to Boston's five and the Yankees' seven.

[/ QUOTE ]
meh

[ QUOTE ]
You wonder if Atlanta will find that Hudson's best years are behind him.

[/ QUOTE ]
hahaha

sublime

12-23-2004, 08:09 PM

The way this team is run though, I don't see them ever winning a WS. They will just make the playoffs and crumble again.

its called lack of capital.

theo epstein + lots of money = billy beane.

and i think theo rulez

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 08:14 PM

precisely, Boston is able to add the players that can change the game with one swing because they have the dough. Oakland does not, and it doesn't seem like they ever will. Beane is to content to make teams that will over a 162 game season put up a .600ish winning percentage. Of course when the sample is that large you can afford to have a fairly large variance in regards to winning and loosing. But I would rather have a team that winds 2 then loses one all year long as opposed to a team that does something like wins 6 in a row, then drops 4 in a row. coincidently, the teams that rountinely win 2 lose 1(Red Sox) do well in the playoffs(last year atleast /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

sublime

12-23-2004, 08:19 PM

i wouldnt say he is content to do that, just that he doesnt have much choice, building a top to bottom powerhouse is not a luxury he has. if he continues to get his teams into the playoffs, sooner or later they will win a WS.

Paluka

12-23-2004, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why did the Yankees dominate the late 90's in the playoffs, while Oakland couldn't do a thing during their great stretch. Were the Yankees luckier?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Yankees absolutely were luckier. Losing a 7 game playoff series is like having a losing session at poker. It is nowhere near the long run.

ClaytonN

12-23-2004, 08:23 PM

There's something the Yankees have that the Braves and the Athletics lack.

I don't know if the fanbase has anything to do with it, but being in Atlanta I can say with absolute certainty that baseball is the third-most popular sport in the city behind the non-playing Thrashers and the hugely popular Falcons (everyone hates the Hawks), despite the fact they've made the playoffs every season since 1991 (not counting the strike season).

Even though the Braves won one WS in '95 (and I was there in game 6), they've had the exact same mold as the Athletics. The Athletics are the AL version of the Braves, in a way.

WillMagic

12-23-2004, 08:45 PM

TSC...do you realize what you are saying? I'll translate what you are saying into poker terms.

"Boston is able to add the players that can change the game with one swing because they have the dough. Oakland does not, and it doesn't seem like they ever will."

translates into "AK is a drawing hand."

What do you mean by players that can change the game with one swing? Is there some statistics that back this up? Do you mean players that can hit a home run? Because the A's have plenty of those.

"Beane is to content to make teams that will over a 162 game season put up a .600ish winning percentage."

Translates into: "AA only wins 30% of the time against nine players."

Your statement is true, but deceiving. Do you realize how good a .600 win% is? Only three teams had a .600 win percentage last year - St. Louis, New York, and Boston. Saying you are content to have a .600 win percentage is essentially saying you are content to be one of the best teams in baseball and make the playoffs every year.

This also illustrates the short-term luck factor. The best team in baseball only wins 6 out of 10 games. It is very, very easy for a team to lose a five-game series, even if they are the superior team. The short-term luck factor is just too large.

"But I would rather have a team that winds 2 then loses one all year long as opposed to a team that does something like wins 6 in a row, then drops 4 in a row."

Translates into: "I'd much rather win 1 BB every hour rather than win 10 BB's one hour and lose 9 the next."

Of course you would, but it doesn't work that way. Just like poker, there is a large short-term luck factor in baseball. You don't get to control variance - it is what it is, and the idea that the Red Sox have less variance than the other teams is just silly - they have as much variance as everyone else.

Will

WillMagic

12-23-2004, 08:51 PM

"Why did the Yankees dominate the late 90's in the playoffs, while Oakland couldn't do a thing during their great stretch. Were the Yankees luckier? "

Yes, significantly so.

"come on, you as a poker player should know luck is bull [censored]. If you didn't know that yet, you really should."

Au contraire. As a winning poker player I know that short-term luck is everywhere. I know that, though in the long run I will win all the money, that I will not win every hand when I am the favorite, that I can go on a -100 BB run and this wouldn't change the fact that I was the best player at the table.

"I have spend countless hours arguing with people about this, I guess I could go again."

If you are going to stick to your position, then you will probably have to. You should probably read Moneyball before you go any further though.

Will

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did the Yankees dominate the late 90's in the playoffs, while Oakland couldn't do a thing during their great stretch. Were the Yankees luckier?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Yankees absolutely were luckier. Losing a 7 game playoff series is like having a losing session at poker. It is nowhere near the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as luck.

again after readin Wills post let me stress this again. There is no such thing as luck .

WillMagic

12-23-2004, 09:16 PM

Please explain yourself.

Will

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 09:39 PM

first of all trying to compare baseball to poker is a little ridiculous, baseball players have more control over their situation then poker players. True, % still play a large role.

anyways, lets just look at this in terms of baseball and not poker, please /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]

"Boston is able to add the players that can change the game with one swing because they have the dough. Oakland does not, and it doesn't seem like they ever will."

translates into "AK is a drawing hand."

What do you mean by players that can change the game with one swing? Is there some statistics that back this up? Do you mean players that can hit a home run? Because the A's have plenty of those.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me show you something:

Team OPS
Boston .832, tops in the majors
Oakland .776 15th in the majors

60 points is a huge difference, so while Oakland may have some power, they don't have nearly as much as Boston.

Another stat
Runs scored
Boston: 949 which led the majors
Oakland:793 which was 15th again

Clearly the kew in baseball is to win games, and you win games by scoring more runs than your opponent. Because of the amount of runs that teams like Boston, NY, ans STL scored last year their variance had a beter chance to be much lower than a team like Oakland, especially if those three teams had good pitching.

When you do just some basic math 949/162, Boston scored on average 5.85 runs a game, combine that with their team ERA 4.18, and well its pretty obvious who will win most of the time.

Oaklands average runs per game was 793/162= 4.89, which if you combine with Oaklands team ERA of 4.17, you can clearly see that their variance is going to be much higher(I have no idea how to even caculate the variance for either team /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

So basically if you just look at these numbers, its pretty obvious why Oakland won more games then they lost last year, same thing with Boston, but it should also be obvious that Oaklands chances of loosing games were higher than Bostons, thus a higher varince, thus in short series, they are more likely to lose than Boston.

Clearly the reason why Oakland has this problem is they are unable to sign/keep top tier players. Beane does a fantastic job of finding excellent young major league level ready players, and he has had great results, but he lacks the power needed to minimize his variance. I am not sure why they don't sign some big free agents, whether its budget or what, but I can say with pretty good certainty, they are not likely to win a WS without one or some.

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain yourself.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]I am sure Sklansky can explain to you better than I why luck doesn't exist.

Paluka

12-23-2004, 09:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So basically if you just look at these numbers, its pretty obvious why Oakland won more games then they lost last year, same thing with Boston, but it should also be obvious that Oaklands chances of loosing games were higher than Bostons, thus a higher varince, thus in short series, they are more likely to lose than Boston.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is claiming that the As were better than the Red Sox last year. The point is that you don't have to be the best team to win the World Series. The A's were good enough over a long enough period and could have easily won a championship. I really don't understand where you are coming from or what point your are trying to make.

ThaSaltCracka

12-23-2004, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand where you are coming from or what point your are trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ] clearly.

WillMagic

12-23-2004, 10:16 PM

You are being really cryptic here...and it's really kind of silly. Rule #1 of debating: impact your arguments. If you are going to say that luck doesn't exist...explain yourself. I'll give you some questions to help you out...

1. How are you defining luck?
2. Does luck exist in the short-term? (one game, ten games, fifty games, one hundred games.)

Will

WillMagic

12-23-2004, 11:15 PM

"first of all trying to compare baseball to poker is a little ridiculous, baseball players have more control over their situation then poker players. True, % still play a large role."

Do they really? I don't think so. If this was the case the team with the best players would win a much higher percentage of their games. There is far more luck in baseball than there is in, say, football or basketball. That's the main reason there are so many games in the regular season.

"When you do just some basic math 949/162, Boston scored on average 5.85 runs a game, combine that with their team ERA 4.18, and well its pretty obvious who will win most of the time."

"Oaklands average runs per game was 793/162= 4.89, which if you combine with Oaklands team ERA of 4.17, you can clearly see that their variance is going to be much higher(I have no idea how to even caculate the variance for either team )."

You are confusing EV and variance. They are completely different concepts...and to put it as gingerly as possible, I am really surprised that you are making this mistake.

Boston had an expected run differential of +1.67, while the A's had an ERD of +0.72. This is basically expected value. Note that this has NOTHING to do with your variance. Variance is a statistical measure of short-term luck.

The main thing is that your statistics do not back up:

"Boston is able to add the players that can change the game with one swing because they have the dough. Oakland does not, and it doesn't seem like they ever will."

I'm not disputing that Boston was a better team than Oakland in 2004, and you are looking at the right statistics to judge this sort of thing. But when you start comparing teams based on your totally subjective analysis of "players that can change the game with one swing," then you are on the wrong track. How do you score "players that can change the game with one swing"? Do you keep a running tally? How do you decide which players can and which players can't? Being able to answer these questions is the difference between subjective and objective analysis.

"Clearly the reason why Oakland has this problem is they are unable to sign/keep top tier players"

How do your statistics back up this assertion? I'm curious...because in previous years the A's had better run differentials than the Sox even though they had the same inability to sign and keep top tier players.

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH YOUR WHOLE POST is that you use good statistics to try and prove assertions which they do not prove.

The OPS and ERA stats you provide show that Boston was a better baseball team than Oakland last year. They do not, however, show that Boston has more players that can change the game with one swing, they do not show that Boston has less variance than Oakland, and they do not show that the cause of this difference is Oakland's inability to sign top-tier players.

Statistics are great, but it's better if you use them when they prove the point you are making.

Will

ThaSaltCracka

12-24-2004, 01:08 AM

luck does not exist.

if you are a 90% favorite to win something and you lose, you are not unlucky, you are just feeling the 10% side that does not favor you.

How can you possibly tell me luck exist? What can you base it on? The onus is on you to try and prove luck exist, not on me to prove it doesn't.

ThaSaltCracka

12-24-2004, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do they really? I don't think so. If this was the case the team with the best players would win a much higher percentage of their games. There is far more luck in baseball than there is in, say, football or basketball. That's the main reason there are so many games in the regular season.

[/ QUOTE ] This should be painfully obvious to you, so I am completely surprised I even have to explain it. The team with the best players wins most of the time, do you have proof to the contrary. Also, you fail completely to realize that when a team has good pitchers pitching they win more often. It is very common(on a good team) to see 1 or 2 pitchers with very good winning record, another two with above average records, and then one with a rougly break even average. So based upon the restraints of the human body, it is simply not possible to pitch your best pitchers on anything less than 4 days rest. Thus you have to basically use average pitchers who are more susceptible to losing.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing that Boston was a better team than Oakland in 2004, and you are looking at the right statistics to judge this sort of thing. But when you start comparing teams based on your totally subjective analysis of "players that can change the game with one swing," then you are on the wrong track. How do you score "players that can change the game with one swing"? Do you keep a running tally? How do you decide which players can and which players can't? Being able to answer these questions is the difference between subjective and objective analysis.

[/ QUOTE ] You are focusing on one phrase instead of actually trying to listen to what I am saying. "Changing the game with one swing" is vague, buts its meaning is apparently completely lost on you. I can't even believe I have to explain this to you. Here is a perfect example of who I am talking about: Manny Ramirez. Oakland does not have a player like Manny, or for that matter David Ortiz, both of which are consistently near the top of the AL in VORP. Oakland simply does not have the money to get players like this.

Now as for me being objective, I am not sure how more objective I can get. I hate Boston and Manny, but I can't deny that the way the have set up their team is the superior way, something which Oakland simply cannot do.

[ QUOTE ]
How do your statistics back up this assertion? I'm curious...because in previous years the A's had better run differentials than the Sox even though they had the same inability to sign and keep top tier players.

[/ QUOTE ] The run differential in past years is irrelavent in this comparison, because you want me to compare past Oakland teams to past Boston teams in years in which Oakland was better than Boston. I mean, we can do that, but it proves absolutely nothing other than Oakland was good enough to be better than an above average team.

[ QUOTE ]
The OPS and ERA stats you provide show that Boston was a better baseball team than Oakland last year. They do not, however, show that Boston has more players that can change the game with one swing,

[/ QUOTE ] The fact that you are still both focusing on one phrase, and displaying zero understanding of OPS show me you have no idea what you are talking about. OPS is OBP and SLG combined. There are two ways to increase a team OPS. They are walk more and hit more extra base hits , if you don't think hitting an extra base hit(especially when your team has high OBP) doesn't "change the game with one swing", then I really don't know what does. Also, the fact that their team has has a higher OPS than the rest of the league, would lead me to believe that they have more people that can "change the game with one swing".

again, your arguments are baseless, and you have done absolutely nothing to refute what I have saif. instead you focus and critique "buzz words".

Seriously, your whole "rebutal" is a joke.

Oski

12-24-2004, 02:14 AM

I agree with TSC. The one thing that has not been directly mentioned is this: There is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to building a team. In other words, it takes a certain amount of assets to build a regular-season team that can make the playoffs; it takes quite a few more to make the jump into a team that can WIN in the playoffs.

TSC is correct here. More often than not, playoffs are won by studs. The team with more studs usually wins. A stud is a player that can carry a team by making a big play or having a big night (or series).

Even when a "team" wins the series, its usually due to a dominating series by one or two players. Think of Beckett from FLA or Johnson and Schilling for AZ.

Big market teams can add these expensive components, small market teams cannot - they have to play out the year with what they got.

With that said, I would say the A's have underperformed in the playoffs ... but, that still does not surprise me because they usually have to rely on their regular-season form to hold up to the heat of the playoffs.

AJo Go All In

12-24-2004, 02:15 AM

i love threads like this because they are so educational. not about baseball etc., but about how thesaltcracker is an idiot and i can now safely disregard whatever he says.

Paluka

12-24-2004, 02:30 AM

TheSaltCracka has gone off the deep end. Somewhere in the middle of this thread he must have got really drunk. We all know that Boston is a better team than Oakland right now. We all know they have better hitters. What is your point?

WillMagic

12-24-2004, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Seriously, your whole "rebutal" is a joke."

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? You keep making assertions that are faulty. In my rebuttals I have told you they were faulty and given you evidence to the point. You've also used statistics incorrectly. I said this was the case and gave evidence to this point.

On to your specific points -

[ QUOTE ]
This should be painfully obvious to you, so I am completely surprised I even have to explain it. The team with the best players wins most of the time, do you have proof to the contrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never asserted this. You said that baseball players have much more control over the game than poker players do. I disagreed. Of course the better team wins more games in the long run...just like the better poker player wins the money in the long run. But, like the poker player, the better team will still lose a signifcant number of games (or five-game series), just like the poker player will have a significant number of losing sessions.

[ QUOTE ]
if you don't think hitting an extra base hit(especially when your team has high OBP) doesn't "change the game with one swing", then I really don't know what does. Also, the fact that their team has has a higher OPS than the rest of the league, would lead me to believe that they have more people that can "change the game with one swing".

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent! You've defined players that change the game with one swing as players that have a high OPS. Now we have something to go on. You are correct that Oakland does not have the money to sign such players. Instead, they develop them. Giambi, Tejada, Chavez...and coming soon Nick Swisher. Yes, I know Giambi and Tejada are no longer with the A's. But when you say that the A's franchise simply does not have the ability to get high OPS players, you do have to look at more than this year, and look at the last five years. Over the past five years they've had plenty of players with high OPS's.

Anyway, I could go on a further point-by-point analysis here...but AJ Go All In and Paluka made me realize that I've kinda been thrashing you, and we could go on arguing this forever, me generally being right and you generally being wrong, but we have better ways to spend our time.

Will

ThaSaltCracka

12-24-2004, 03:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I never asserted this. You said that baseball players have much more control over the game than poker players do. I disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, and you are wrong. A Poker player can do whatever he can to maximize his profit/play/whatever, but there one thing he cannot control. The cards he is dealt and what cards are flopped, etc. Baseball players can control the aspect of the game much more so then card players can. How else can you explain a guy like Randy Johnson that just completely takes over a game?

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent! You've defined players that change the game with one swing as players that have a high OPS. Now we have something to go on.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes! and I shouldn't of had to even do this. Your inability to recognize what I was talking about was based either in your ignorance or your stubborness, for your sake I'll assume the later.

[ QUOTE ]
But when you say that the A's franchise simply does not have the ability to get high OPS players, you do have to look at more than this year, and look at the last five years. Over the past five years they've had plenty of players with high OPS's.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes! and your ignorance is again in full display. I never said they cannot get these players, but this is what they do. They find young players that are major league level ready and they basically mold them into good players, but by the time their contract has expired they are unable to sign them. To make matters worse, they just spent 3-5 years developing players that are neither in their prime yet or have come close to reaching their full potential. You really want to talk about Giambi? Giambi is a freak that took roids, he does not, nor should he factor into any of this discussion. Tejada is a perfect case in point, they basically groomed him for another team. Chavez? He most certainly is not Tejada. The key, which you are completely missing, is that they don't get high OPS guys, the groom high OPS guys. You will not see them sign a huge OPS guys.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I could go on a further point-by-point analysis here...but AJ Go All In and Paluka made me realize that I've kinda been thrashing you

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, if two people who have done nothing to help support your claims is all the proof you need, go ahead and continue being stupid. Both of them have no clue what they are talking about, because if they did they would have said something other than I am wrong.

You truely have zero grasp of baseball.

ThaSaltCracka

12-24-2004, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
TheSaltCracka has gone off the deep end. Somewhere in the middle of this thread he must have got really drunk. We all know that Boston is a better team than Oakland right now. We all know they have better hitters. What is your point?

[/ QUOTE ]dude, go away, it is apparent you have absolutely no clue what either myself or Will is even talking about. Seriously, your lst sentence is so far away from what we are talking about its not even funny.

ThaSaltCracka

12-24-2004, 03:21 AM

Thank you Oski, this is precisely what I am talking about.

Oski

12-24-2004, 05:04 AM

1. Luck in baseball.

This is very hard to figure. This is in response that the Yankees of the 90's were significantly luckier than the A's.

I cannot buy that for a minute.

I am sure luck exists in baseball, but I am not sure where. You can see that a team benefits from a bad call ... that is lucky; or that a team seems to make it through a season with less injuries than the average ... that may be lucky.

However, the best argument is by example:

1998 Dodgers. On paper, they were far inferior to the Mets and A's. In fact, they were significantly beat up heading into the playoffs, and they lost a few more key players during the playoffs.

Dodgers beat the A's in five games. I cannot say the Dodgers were lucky. Hershiser dominated the A's, it would be hard to say the Dodger's got lucky. Nevertheless, the Dodgers of 88 are often considered the worst team to win the series.

1992 Angels. I might listen to an argument that they got lucky. It seemed they benefitted from a lot of big plays that were made possible by mistakes by the other team (both by players and managers). It can also be argued, they were "lucky" to match up well with the Yanks, Twins, and Giants.

It certainly cannot be said the Yanks of the 90's were lucky: They always had a nucleus built for the postseason. Dominating pitching (both starting and closing) and a solid lineup that could run, field and hit. If anyone is going to tell me the Yanks were lucky in any given year, I would wonder how that argument holds up considering all the other times they won. For each title won during that span, the less likely it was due to luck.

2. Comparing baseball to poker (in order to illustrate luck): I don't see it.

You have a significant variable that is beyond the control of either party: the cards. What that means is that one player can be playing at the top of his game, yet he can still lose in the short run to an inferior competitor.

In baseball, I cannot think of one example where it could be said that despite the fact the best team played at its best, it lost to an inferior team that did not play as well. It may happen for one game, (arguendo) but it likely will not happen during a 7-game series.

Example: If the description of the 2000 WSOP main event is accurate, it would seem that Cloutier played much better than Ferguson. However, Ferguson won a number of times when he was a large dog with his money in. Did he win those pots because Cloutier played poorly (or was an inferior player?)?

Probably not. The independent variable of the cards favored Ferguson that day. A very important variable, that was out of either players influence, enabled the inferior player to beat the better player.

Take it one step further: every time Phil Helmuth loses so much as a penny, it was due to bad luck. He clearly outplays everyone all the time, but the goddamn cards do not cooperate. He makes the best laydowns since Jenna Jamison, yet he gets beat by a bunch of pikers. He is so unstoppable, he needs to meditate to help him forget he is a God among men.

In baseball, the independent variable do not play so much of a role - most seem like independent variables, but they are not. Pressure of the playoffs? One team got unlucky because its star player "choked?" I don't buy that.

The Yankees (for example) look for players who play well in big spots ... in other words, the choke factor is already factored in.

Usually, when a team seems to get unlucky in baseball, it is because the other team influenced them in some way that can only be attributed to that team, not luck. Hershiser beat the A's. For whatever reason, he gave his team such a huge lift, they played better than the A's.

Every once in awhile, a Hershiser, a Jack Morris (of course, he had Puckett), a Beckett, etc. can drastically effect a series.

Teams with large resources are most likely to have them, because they are able to target 3 or 4 (or more) of these players. This increases the odds of them having that stud who can win the series for them.

Finally, there are scores of players who play well in the regular season, yet do not perform "as they should" in the playoffs. If it happens once or twice, it may be "unlucky"; if it continually happens (Barry, and Dave Winfield) that player might not have what it takes to perform in the playoff atmosphere. Money players are what its all about ... you need them to win a series.

The A's win by formula, they do not have the money players. (If they do or did, we have yet to hear from them on this matter).

Lefthander

12-24-2004, 05:08 AM

You know Chavez had a slightly higher OPS than Tejada last year, right? Not a huge difference, but I don't see why you think the two aren't comparable.

Tejada: .311 .360 .534 .894
Chavez: .276 .397 .501 .898

Lefthander

12-24-2004, 05:31 AM

Didn't Barry pretty much crush the notion that he can't perform in the playoffs? His 2002 postseason was dominant.

There's a huge sample size problem with labelling anyone a "choker." Good players have bad stretches of games all the time. Saying a player can't perform in the clutch based on seven games would be something like saying someone can't play poker based on a losing session.

Oski

12-24-2004, 05:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Barry pretty much crush the notion that he can't perform in the playoffs? His 2002 postseason was dominant.

There's a huge sample size problem with labelling anyone a "choker." Good players have bad stretches of games all the time. Saying a player can't perform in the clutch based on seven games would be something like saying someone can't play poker based on a losing session.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Barry did it once. Good for him (was it the clear or the cream? Maybe both?). [Nice one, by the way. your second argument addresses your belief that a short sample should not dominate the conclusion. ... Barry had many failed trips in the playoffs, in fact he was notorious for "choking." Now, according to you, his one good post season "crushes the notion" he does not come through in the playoffs. He still played like crap those other times, he has a ways to go to improve his playoff legacy.]

2. Notwithstanding ... sample size is not a problem. The playoffs IS THE SAMPLE SIZE. If the player smells it up, he is not a prime performer in the playoffs. If you are concerned about winning the world series, well, ... how a player plays in the playoffs is pretty goddamn important.

There have been many great players who have not been great playoff players. So be it. The whole argument is about why the A's did not win the world series when they were so good in the 90's. More correct would be to say the argument is about why the Yankees were not lucky to win so much in the 90's, (as opposed to one opinion that they were just more lucky than the A's).

Large market teams tend to improve their chances by having more players who have that big-time, playoff potential ... whether one want to call that player a stud, money player, or a player who can change the game with one swing of the bat.

Statistics rule the regular season, gamers rule the playoffs.

By the way, the poker analogy sucks for baseball, ok? If you are a world class poker player, and you enter the WSOP only once, and you lose on the first day ... at that time, you are not a good WSOP player. Rating a post season baseball player can only be done by using that player's performance in the playoffs. Whether that player is otherwise a good player, is a different question.

Corey

12-24-2004, 06:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1. Luck in baseball.
...
1998 Dodgers.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the 1988 series. As I still maintain if Gibson doesn't jack it in game 1, the A's roll over the hapless Dodgers. To this day, I turn awey from the screen when I knew Gibson's shot is coming up.

[ QUOTE ]

It certainly cannot be said the Yanks of the 90's were lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

Two examples of the luck was invoved with the post-'95 Yankees:

1) Jermery Giambi doesn't slide. The lesser Giambi could have instaly discredited the Jeter mystique with a slide. As I believe Ray Ratto said earlier this year, Giambi Jr. didn't slide because his ass was sore from "clear" injections.

2) I don't rember the exact scenario, but had Cario's (I think) ball not had the exact amount of slice to it in game 4 in 2004, it's a ground rule double and the Yanks go on in 4 and everyone continues to complain about Steinbrenner nuying titles.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a significant variable that is beyond the control of either party: the cards. What that means is that one player can be playing at the top of his game, yet he can still lose in the short run to an inferior competitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every at bat/pitch is a short term event. Batting Averages/OBP's are just that: avergages.

Say Jeff Maier doesn't embarass Tony Tarassco in right field, the O's go on to win the ALCS, and the Yanks don't build the late 90's dynnasty. Joe Carter's home run against the Phil's: There was a certain percent it was going to be an HR. Every action today is built on a series of inceasingly dependant events that are inherently random (given certain EV's)

The way I look at the A's of the early 21st century: Grant them a 55% chance of winning each series (favorites to win the WS by definition). Well, their EV is winning the WS, but there's a 4.1....% chance they lose each first round series. S- happens in a 5-game series and each 5-game series is highly dependant on the variance of each and every action in a baseball game.

This is why all playoffs systems are inherently flawed, but are huge cash cows (anyone can win).

-Corey "The Steelers/2004 NFL, Spurs/03-04 NBA, St. Louis Cards, and Aresenal/EPL" are 2004 Champions

Lefthander

12-24-2004, 06:26 AM

1. The whole thing is a small sample size. Barry's got 151 career playoff ABs. It's just not enough to say. My point was that his 2002 explosion proves that he can perform in the postseason. As in, it's possible. Doesn't it prove that? That there's nothing inherent in Barry, no lack of gamerness, that will always cause him to choke?

2. These parts:
[ QUOTE ]
If the player smells it up, he is not a prime performer in the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Rating a post season baseball player can only be done by using that player's performance in the playoffs. Whether that player is otherwise a good player, is a different question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are true. Or at least the player hasn't been a prime performer in the playoffs. Not yet. It doesn't mean that he can't or won't be. It isn't a big enough sample to ensure that this quality is repeatable or predictable.

To tie this to the Yanks, they were both good and lucky. In 1998 it was more of the former, and in 2000 more of the latter. The "gamer" argument is silly. If it held weight, what would explain 2001? Did Mariano Rivera suddenly become not a "gamer" when he blew game seven? Or maybe it was Jeter, with his 4 for 27 for the series?

My point being that even the mighty Yankees can't tell which players will or won't perform well in the postseason. They just get good players and hope they give something close to their regular season performance for the games in October. Same as Oakland, same as Minnesota, same as Boston.

Paluka

12-24-2004, 09:47 AM

Most of this argument has turned into semantics. If a team that is 80% to win the world series loses 4 in a row I call it bad luck. You call it something else.

Oski

12-24-2004, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of this argument has turned into semantics. If a team that is 80% to win the world series loses 4 in a row I call it bad luck. You call it something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flat out, silly.

There is a percentage on the event, however, nobody can ascertain what that percentage is with any degree of certainty.

You cannot say any team has an expectation in relation to the event. This is not Strat-O-Matic, it is baseball.

You simply cannot evaluate a player's post season performance by including his regular season performance ... two different questions.

However, regular season performance can be used in attempting to evaluate a player's potential playoff performance.

The question is not whether Barry Bonds CAN perform in the playoffs, its whether he has.

He has not proven himself to be a money player in the playoffs, but I would still take him on my team as the chance of him performing well seem pretty good. At the very least, even if Bonds smells it up (again) he still provides benefits to the whole team which may positively effect other players.

Oski

12-24-2004, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Luck in baseball.
...
1998 Dodgers.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the 1988 series. As I still maintain if Gibson doesn't jack it in game 1, the A's roll over the hapless Dodgers. To this day, I turn awey from the screen when I knew Gibson's shot is coming up.

[ QUOTE ]

It certainly cannot be said the Yanks of the 90's were lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

Two examples of the luck was invoved with the post-'95 Yankees:

1) Jermery Giambi doesn't slide. The lesser Giambi could have instaly discredited the Jeter mystique with a slide. As I believe Ray Ratto said earlier this year, Giambi Jr. didn't slide because his ass was sore from "clear" injections.

2) I don't rember the exact scenario, but had Cario's (I think) ball not had the exact amount of slice to it in game 4 in 2004, it's a ground rule double and the Yanks go on in 4 and everyone continues to complain about Steinbrenner nuying titles.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a significant variable that is beyond the control of either party: the cards. What that means is that one player can be playing at the top of his game, yet he can still lose in the short run to an inferior competitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every at bat/pitch is a short term event. Batting Averages/OBP's are just that: avergages.

Say Jeff Maier doesn't embarass Tony Tarassco in right field, the O's go on to win the ALCS, and the Yanks don't build the late 90's dynnasty. Joe Carter's home run against the Phil's: There was a certain percent it was going to be an HR. Every action today is built on a series of inceasingly dependant events that are inherently random (given certain EV's)

The way I look at the A's of the early 21st century: Grant them a 55% chance of winning each series (favorites to win the WS by definition). Well, their EV is winning the WS, but there's a 4.1....% chance they lose each first round series. S- happens in a 5-game series and each 5-game series is highly dependant on the variance of each and every action in a baseball game.

This is why all playoffs systems are inherently flawed, but are huge cash cows (anyone can win).

-Corey "The Steelers/2004 NFL, Spurs/03-04 NBA, St. Louis Cards, and Aresenal/EPL" are 2004 Champions

[/ QUOTE ]

Notwithstanding your "examples" I don't see how this is luck ... Indeed, and as I pointed out earlier, benefitting from a bad call is lucky. However, to draw the conclusion you did from that event is too much. Perhaps a better team would not have let it effect them as much, we don't know.

Giambi not sliding? That is one team exploiting a flaw in the other ... that is not luck. Its may be lucky for the Yankees that the team they played had a player who was fundamentally flawed in that he could not slide on his ass. Such a flaw goes to the quality of the player and team, not luck.

Gibson's homer? I am not sure how that is luck. Eck was looking to strike Gibby out, Gibby was looking to hit the ball out of the park. Uh, he won that battle. Now, you seem to say that if Gibson does not hit that homer that Hershiser would not pitch a 3-hit shutout and have 3 rbi the next day? Not buying it.