Screw Moneyball

[noonanberg]

I have to get this off my chest. I think it's about time the Sox and their fans get over this whole Moneyball bit. You see the A's now, and they aren't exactly what I would call a great team. Sure they win and often make the playoffs, but they are never a serious contender. If the Sox want to shape their team in that format (like the Bruins do) then fine, but don't expect us to ever win if all we're looking for is guys who get on base and then just knock them in without ever bunting or hitting and running.

[RedSoxRooter]

Has anyone else noticed that since The Shitstorm (game 3 of the Yankees series last week) that the Sox actually have been doing a little more bunting and putting runners in motion? Or is it just me and wishfull thinking?

That said, I have to agree. It's just a personal prefference... I think a lot of opposing pitchers lose their game if they worry about runners taking off or a bunt about to go down.

Take the case of our own Mr. Lowe. He can pitch great when nobody is on base. But once he lets a runner on base he becomes a totally different pitcher. He slows everything down, misses his pitches and gets lost in his own head. That's because he's more worried about the runner than the batter.

I think there are different ways of keeping the pressure on the opposing pitcher and bunting some and swiping a bag (even delayed steals) are definitely two ways to do that. It also sets everybody in the infield in motion, creating holes and takes players out of their defensive strategy/allignment.

On paper I understand why you don't bunt or steal (never give away an out because you only get 27 all game), but I think that mindset should be reserved for when the game is either tied or close early, or you have the lead.

If you are behind late, screw Moneyball and just play baseball. Does anybody know the stat for this year for how many games the Red Sox have won when trailing after the 7th inning??? I don't recall it being too many.

[trot4mvp]

Couldn't agree more...Moneyball makes some interesting points, but Billy Beane's success is not derived from "Moneyball" tactics:

1. Throughout the book, Beane criticizes drafting high school players. Hmmm...who have been Beane's two best position players over the last several years? Tejada and Chavez, and they were drafted straight out of high school...hmmmmm....granted, college draftees like Swisher, Youkilis, Teahan, etc. have flourished in the minors, none are ready to make the kind of impacts that high school draftees Tejada and Chavez have.

2. There are 3 big reasons the A's have maintained success, and none of them have anything to do with OBP, OPS, etc etc: Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito. Without these 3, the A's teams of the last 4 years are NOTHING!

3. The A's have made the playoffs 4 seasons in a row, and what have they gotten out of it? The one big game that they did win using small ball was game 1 of the 2003 ALDS...I need not say more.

Say what you want about OBP and no small ball and drafting college players...I just don't think its the right formula for a winning season.

[CrespoBlows]

Replying to comments made by Trot (don't know how to quote)

1. Tejada was undrafted, Chavez did come out of H.S. but wasn't drafted by Beane

2. All 3 of the Big 3 were drafted by Beane. Zito was a reach according to most scouts.

3. In Game 1 of the ALDS, Hernandez clearly bunted for a base hit (there were 2 outs in the inning.

So moneyball isn't all bad, consdering the fact the A's have a 40 million dollar payroll, I think Beane is doing a good job.

[Zenny]

Hitting and running was fantastic in the 8th inning tonight. Damon on first and Mueller swinging at the first pitch for a line-out double-play. I want the Sox to bunt and steal more as well, but I think the hit and run is the most overrated play in baseball.

[CalvnHobs6]

I'm all for GM's going with the moneyball ideals. What is WRONG is the manager going strictly by them. The players Theo signs are signed because of the moneyball ideals. But when Francona doesn't go by his gut and just by the stats, or when Little only went by his got and ignored the stats, we have/had a problem. We need a combination of the two.

[trot4mvp]

see comments below...

[trot4mvp]

Tejada was undrafted

True, but he also didn't go to college, and Beane explicitly states in the book that he reviles non-college draftees. It doesn't matter when they were drafted...my point was that the team's offensive success was derived from 2 players that directly contradict Beane's methods.


All 3 of the Big 3 were drafted by Beane

They could've been drafted by Dan Duquette for all I care...the A's don't win unless all 3 are on their A game (no pun intended).


Hernandez clearly bunted for a base hit

That's exactly my point...the A's might not win that "big game" without a well timed bunt; it doesn't matter that it went for a base hit. Its not like it would've made a difference if Mueller threw him out at first (unless there were two outs obviously...I couldn't find a game log to confirm). Could've been a different ball game if Hernandez didn't lay down the bunt.

That said, how many World Championships have been won by GMs running around with their laptops spitting out OBPs and other Moneyball stats? How many have been won by GMs who put together TEAMS in the truest sense of the word (2003 Marlins, 2002 Angels, late 90s MFY come to mind...)? Playoff appearances are great, but until somebody starts winning championships with guys like Scott Hatteberg and Erubiel Durazo, I'm not buying it. I recognize the importance of some of Beane's philosophies, but nobody gets a prize for 4th place in AL 4 years in a row.

[elsrbueno]

Most of this stuff has already been said, but I'll just spit out my opinion anyway:

The moneyball theory works....in the regular season. Getting guys on base and waiting for the big boppers is a recipe for success when facing teams like Baltimore, Tampa Bay, etc who have weak pitchers.

The problem is that it doesn't work in the playoffs. Games are typically closer, pitchers/teams are better, and three-run homers just don't come as often. This is when you have to be able to manufacture runs.

I site the Atlanta Braves as an example for my argument. They have had TONS of post-season success getting good pitchers and waiting for the 3-run homer. However, they are infamous for their post-season failure. Oakland hasn't won a post-season series since the early 90s.

YES, stealing, hit and runs, etc are risky. The Red Sox even killed a few rallies against the Yankees in the 2003 ALCS by trying to put runners in motion and getting double plays. Maybe they weren't doing it in the right situation, or maybe they didn't have the right people. It's a high risk, high reward situation.

Small-ball wins championships. The Marlins and Angels proved that, and the Yankees teams who won three years in a row proved that too. If you can't get the bunt down, or execute hits and runs, etc....you are destined for post-season failure (in my mind).

[Tek04]

Has moneyball ever proved to win a world series?

[trot4mvp]

NO! And until it does, it is a flawed theory, IMHO.

[elsrbueno]

Trot, as I stated above, I agree with you again.

The moneyball theory doesn't win championships...and isn't that what the Red Sox/Athletics etc are gunning for?!?