Eric Neel of ESPN.com scribed this article about Billy Beane and the A's philosophy of stat-driven scouting along with a heavy preference for college players. The piece contains many quotes from other GMs, including a few other "small-market" guys like Terry Ryan of the Twins and everyone's favorite flogging boy, Allard Baird of the Royals. (Nobody mentions J.P. Ricciardi or Keith Law, but we know their philosophies.) The astute BB cabal has discussed many of these issues, and I -- and others, of course; I didn't come up with this notion -- have maintained the absolute key to the A's success is Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: those guys aren't around, we're not talking about Beane quite so much.
Don't we have to give Beane and the Oakland organisation a large amount of credit for these guys too ?
I know its (almost?) unprecedented to have three pitchers that good and that young together and that there is a big slice of luck involve. But, the Jays had a three-some that were somewhere close to the potential of the big three, and only of them turned into what we thought he would be.
I know its (almost?) unprecedented to have three pitchers that good and that young together and that there is a big slice of luck involve. But, the Jays had a three-some that were somewhere close to the potential of the big three, and only of them turned into what we thought he would be.
... the absolute key to the A's success is Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: those guys aren't around, we're not talking about Beane quite so much.
I don't get this. Beane drafted all three pitchers. He employed his college-centric draft strategy and identified three top notch talents. Why should this be used against him?
He drafted Chavez. He drafted Tejada. He acquired, cheaply, the likes of Lilly, Dye, Durazo and Lidle. He continues to cheaply acquire middle-of-the-road talent like Hatteberg.
I do agree that the deification of Billy Beane has reached absurd proportions. But the recent backlash is just as baffling to me.
I don't get this. Beane drafted all three pitchers. He employed his college-centric draft strategy and identified three top notch talents. Why should this be used against him?
He drafted Chavez. He drafted Tejada. He acquired, cheaply, the likes of Lilly, Dye, Durazo and Lidle. He continues to cheaply acquire middle-of-the-road talent like Hatteberg.
I do agree that the deification of Billy Beane has reached absurd proportions. But the recent backlash is just as baffling to me.
the absolute key to the A's success is Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: those guys aren't around, we're not talking about Beane quite so much.
Beane drafted Zito and Mulder, and he didn't trade any of those three guys, when he could easily have done so to acquire front-line talent before the three were ready. Why only give a GM credit for 22 of the players on his roster? Not to mention the fact that Beane made the decision to hire Rick Peterson. Peterson is probably the best pitching coach in the business (check that - probably the best coach of any kind in all of baseball), and his regimen is credited with keeping Zito, Mulder, and Hudson (as well as the rest of their stable of pitching prospects) healthy.
Were it not for the team's three best pitchers, no GM would get much credit. Heck, were it not for Johnson and Schilling, Joe Garagiola Jr. would have been fired two years ago.
Beane drafted Zito and Mulder, and he didn't trade any of those three guys, when he could easily have done so to acquire front-line talent before the three were ready. Why only give a GM credit for 22 of the players on his roster? Not to mention the fact that Beane made the decision to hire Rick Peterson. Peterson is probably the best pitching coach in the business (check that - probably the best coach of any kind in all of baseball), and his regimen is credited with keeping Zito, Mulder, and Hudson (as well as the rest of their stable of pitching prospects) healthy.
Were it not for the team's three best pitchers, no GM would get much credit. Heck, were it not for Johnson and Schilling, Joe Garagiola Jr. would have been fired two years ago.
Sorry, I had been sitting on that response and didn't see Chuck's answer which I repeated a great deal of.
At any rate, I don't think it's "deifying" someone to say he's the best GM in baseball, which Beane is. I think it's pretty rare to see the accolades go much beyond that - even Beane's most fervent supporters will recognize that he makes some mistakes.
At any rate, I don't think it's "deifying" someone to say he's the best GM in baseball, which Beane is. I think it's pretty rare to see the accolades go much beyond that - even Beane's most fervent supporters will recognize that he makes some mistakes.
Incidentally, in this piece on Moneyball Rob Neyer talks with the author, Michael Lewis, who says he wrote a chapter on watching a game with J.P. Ricciardi, which he reluctantly had to cut. Lewis says the chapter might have been the funniest thing in the book and that J.P. is "a very funny man".
I don't know where I said Beane wasn't a great GM.
Thanks for that link, Craig. I like this quote from Lewis (among others): ML: "Only a monster could write about people and not take into their consideration their feelings. I am that monster."
Plus, like Neyer, I'd rather not know the roots of Zito's apartment moniker.
Plus, like Neyer, I'd rather not know the roots of Zito's apartment moniker.
As a citizen of the Dominican Republic, Miguel Tejada wasn't drafted, was he? I bet he was signed after being -- gasp! -- scouted. And -- gasp! -- he's a "tools" guy, too!
As for Ted Lilly and Erubiel Durazo, they were acquired "cheaply" in terms of dollars and cents, but there's absolutely no guarantee as of May 2003 that the A's won either trade, let alone made out like bandits. (Dye, of course, was a steal -- and the A's have actually been unlucky that the trade hasn't worked out even better than it has.)
I have a bit of a middle-ground position with respect to the Big Three. I agree that the college-centric philosophy and the method of preserving young pitchers' arms have to be given their proportionate share of credit, which Beane will gladly take. But as Gwyn noted, there is certainly luck involved with the three developing so quickly while still so young and cheap. Rick Peterson deserves at least some of the credit here, doesn't he?
As for Ted Lilly and Erubiel Durazo, they were acquired "cheaply" in terms of dollars and cents, but there's absolutely no guarantee as of May 2003 that the A's won either trade, let alone made out like bandits. (Dye, of course, was a steal -- and the A's have actually been unlucky that the trade hasn't worked out even better than it has.)
I have a bit of a middle-ground position with respect to the Big Three. I agree that the college-centric philosophy and the method of preserving young pitchers' arms have to be given their proportionate share of credit, which Beane will gladly take. But as Gwyn noted, there is certainly luck involved with the three developing so quickly while still so young and cheap. Rick Peterson deserves at least some of the credit here, doesn't he?
Beane drafted Zito and Mulder, and he didn't trade any of those three guys, when he could easily have done so to acquire front-line talent before the three were ready. Why only give a GM credit for 22 of the players on his roster? Not to mention the fact that Beane made the decision to hire Rick Peterson. Peterson is probably the best pitching coach in the business (check that - probably the best coach of any kind in all of baseball), and his regimen is credited with keeping Zito, Mulder, and Hudson (as well as the rest of their stable of pitching prospects) healthy.
I guess this means that, while Beane is a great GM, his strengths aren't necessarily what other people think they are. Any GM with an iota of sense would have hung on to Zito, Mulder and Hudson; heck, even El Gordo, not normally rated at genius level, kept all his best prospects when making trades for the stretch drive. But Beane was smart enough to identify and hire the best front-office and coaching people around (DePodesta, Ricciardi, Peterson, etc.), and deserves credit for that.
I, for one, would dearly love to get my hands on Michael Lewis's deleted chapter on Ricciardi.
Does anybody (based in Toronto) have a copy of Moneyball yet? I haven't found one locally (and don't think I haven't looked :-)).
I guess this means that, while Beane is a great GM, his strengths aren't necessarily what other people think they are. Any GM with an iota of sense would have hung on to Zito, Mulder and Hudson; heck, even El Gordo, not normally rated at genius level, kept all his best prospects when making trades for the stretch drive. But Beane was smart enough to identify and hire the best front-office and coaching people around (DePodesta, Ricciardi, Peterson, etc.), and deserves credit for that.
I, for one, would dearly love to get my hands on Michael Lewis's deleted chapter on Ricciardi.
Does anybody (based in Toronto) have a copy of Moneyball yet? I haven't found one locally (and don't think I haven't looked :-)).
I didn't even know the book was available in the U.S, until this morning when someone e-mailed me asking me what I thought of it from the perspective of an A's fan and as a -- get this -- "journalist."
That, folks, is comedy.
That, folks, is comedy.
Hot off the presses! From ESPN's chat with Bill James:
Jesse (Toronto,Ontario): What is your opinion on the blue jays so far this year? They seem to have used the Oakland philosophy and are in line for a potential playoff berth in the next few years. Your thoughts?
Bill James: (5:12 PM ET ) Well, I think that is right, but I have been surprised by some things they have done. You know, it may turn out that Billy and JP together were better than either of them working separately. We just don't know. . .
Jesse (Toronto,Ontario): What is your opinion on the blue jays so far this year? They seem to have used the Oakland philosophy and are in line for a potential playoff berth in the next few years. Your thoughts?
Bill James: (5:12 PM ET ) Well, I think that is right, but I have been surprised by some things they have done. You know, it may turn out that Billy and JP together were better than either of them working separately. We just don't know. . .
What would make for a better read: The Dead Sea Scrolls or The missing Moneyball-Ricciardi chapter?
Again, I mentioned it last week, but has anyone had access to BaseballAmerica.com's "Draft Dilemma: High School vs. College" article? It's also in this weeks print edition at a bookstore near you. Ol' J.P.'s got some good points and some smart-arsed quotes in there as well.
Again, I mentioned it last week, but has anyone had access to BaseballAmerica.com's "Draft Dilemma: High School vs. College" article? It's also in this weeks print edition at a bookstore near you. Ol' J.P.'s got some good points and some smart-arsed quotes in there as well.
More from the chat with James:
Do you think Billy Beane is going to revolutionize the face of baseball for years to come??
Bill James: Revolutionize, no. He will have some impact in changing some things. But there is powerful inertia in front offices.
Also on ESPN.com is an excerpt from Moneyball that mentions Pat Gillick scouting Mr. Beane.
Do you think Billy Beane is going to revolutionize the face of baseball for years to come??
Bill James: Revolutionize, no. He will have some impact in changing some things. But there is powerful inertia in front offices.
Also on ESPN.com is an excerpt from Moneyball that mentions Pat Gillick scouting Mr. Beane.
I just got my shipping notification from Chapters. So hopefully I will have a copy tomorrow.
Re the Bill James chat...
I'm old enough to have read Bill James when his books came out and eagerly awaited each new Abstract every spring, driving my roommates insane as we scoured bookstore after bookstore to find them (until the Abstracts became popular and were widely available). I have a difficult time reconciling the arrogant, pompous man that he is now with the more humble, albeit smarmy man he was back then.
That said, I still buy everything he writes and have a great deal of respect for his work.
Still, not only is he clearly out of touch with the current wave of sabermetrics that he, indirectly in some case, directly in others, helped launch some 20 years ago, he's also out of touch with many of the "little" things, like the careers of two terrific players, which I find odd for someone who just updated his HBA.
Adam: Funny to see you draw the HOF line between Palmeiro and McGriff--most commentators these days note that their career statistics are very similar. Why does Palmeiro get your nod over McGriff?
Bill James: I think he's a better player. McGriff has a .514 career slugging percentage; Palmeiro .571. that's not a ditch; that's a canyon. I don't think it is THAT hard to distinguish between them.
Clearly one wouldn't expect him to know that Palmeiro really has a career SLG of .522 -- that's just geek knowledge -- but he should have been at least a little suspicious of the .571 number he quoted (which was actually Palmeiro's SLG in 2002). And he should be aware that the gap between Palmeiro and McGriff is not a huge one and is related to defense, not offense.
Palmeiro's career, park-adjusted OPS+ is 135, in 10,319 PA. McGriff's is 136 in 9,764 PA's. That's as close as two hitters can get. Give Palmeiro points for playing time, not for an edge in offensive ability.
Using Clay Davenport's defensive metric, RAA (runs above average), Palmeiro's at 63 and McGriff's at -89, for a difference of about 15 wins over their career, or just less than one win per season. A one-win defensive edge per season is not, admittedly, negligible. But is it enough to clearly delineate a HOFer from a non-HOFer? That one win sounds like a ditch to me, not a canyon.
Obviously I wouldn't expect James to have this, or a similar analysis, available to him off the top of his head, but for him to summarily dismiss the Palmeiro vs. McGriff argument so readily, based on a number that he just looked up in a book -- and looked up incorrectly for that matter! -- that's a level of arrogance that's truly disappointing.
I'm old enough to have read Bill James when his books came out and eagerly awaited each new Abstract every spring, driving my roommates insane as we scoured bookstore after bookstore to find them (until the Abstracts became popular and were widely available). I have a difficult time reconciling the arrogant, pompous man that he is now with the more humble, albeit smarmy man he was back then.
That said, I still buy everything he writes and have a great deal of respect for his work.
Still, not only is he clearly out of touch with the current wave of sabermetrics that he, indirectly in some case, directly in others, helped launch some 20 years ago, he's also out of touch with many of the "little" things, like the careers of two terrific players, which I find odd for someone who just updated his HBA.
Adam: Funny to see you draw the HOF line between Palmeiro and McGriff--most commentators these days note that their career statistics are very similar. Why does Palmeiro get your nod over McGriff?
Bill James: I think he's a better player. McGriff has a .514 career slugging percentage; Palmeiro .571. that's not a ditch; that's a canyon. I don't think it is THAT hard to distinguish between them.
Clearly one wouldn't expect him to know that Palmeiro really has a career SLG of .522 -- that's just geek knowledge -- but he should have been at least a little suspicious of the .571 number he quoted (which was actually Palmeiro's SLG in 2002). And he should be aware that the gap between Palmeiro and McGriff is not a huge one and is related to defense, not offense.
Palmeiro's career, park-adjusted OPS+ is 135, in 10,319 PA. McGriff's is 136 in 9,764 PA's. That's as close as two hitters can get. Give Palmeiro points for playing time, not for an edge in offensive ability.
Using Clay Davenport's defensive metric, RAA (runs above average), Palmeiro's at 63 and McGriff's at -89, for a difference of about 15 wins over their career, or just less than one win per season. A one-win defensive edge per season is not, admittedly, negligible. But is it enough to clearly delineate a HOFer from a non-HOFer? That one win sounds like a ditch to me, not a canyon.
Obviously I wouldn't expect James to have this, or a similar analysis, available to him off the top of his head, but for him to summarily dismiss the Palmeiro vs. McGriff argument so readily, based on a number that he just looked up in a book -- and looked up incorrectly for that matter! -- that's a level of arrogance that's truly disappointing.
James has become like an egotistical college prof. He tries to show how smart he is, and in the process shows his lack of perspective and lack of a human touch.
I now read his chats to see what weird way his brain works, not for any baseball insight.
I now read his chats to see what weird way his brain works, not for any baseball insight.
I managed to get a question in, but James didn't really answer it. (Has he been spending time with Clinton, or maybe just considering running for office himself?)
Jurgen (Toronto): Bill--What's your take on the explosive starts of Alfonzo Soriano and Rocco Baldelli? How do they manage to hit for average and power so well with such poor BB/K ratios? Are they both getting by on such raw talent that the usual rules for evalutating players don't apply?
Bill James: Baldelli's a lot of fun. In my office we were making fun of some scout who compared him to Joe DiMaggio, but when you see him play you realize what people are reacting to. Of course, he doesn't have DiMaggio's entire package, but he does have more than half of it.
OK, fine. I didn't ask about that, but thanks for coming out. Oh, wait. Here's an interesting question.
Sancho (Chicago): Bill, Is it possible for Corey Patterson to be productive with a 9/1 k/bb ratio, or will he repeat his performance form last season, when he started well and fizzled?
Bill James: Can you name a player who WAS productive with a 9-1 K/W ratio? I can't think of one offhand. You always want to leave room for the exceptional player, but. . .he'd have to be REALLY exceptional.
Hmm... someone who WAS productive with a high K/BB ratio... Hey Bill, how about Soriano? Soriano was pretty productive with a 6.83 K/BB ratio last year. Come to think of it, Baldelli is also tearing up the league while posting a 9.25 K/BB.
Interesting. I wonder what James would say about their success?
Jurgen (Toronto): Bill--What's your take on the explosive starts of Alfonzo Soriano and Rocco Baldelli? How do they manage to hit for average and power so well with such poor BB/K ratios? Are they both getting by on such raw talent that the usual rules for evalutating players don't apply?
Bill James: Baldelli's a lot of fun. In my office we were making fun of some scout who compared him to Joe DiMaggio, but when you see him play you realize what people are reacting to. Of course, he doesn't have DiMaggio's entire package, but he does have more than half of it.
OK, fine. I didn't ask about that, but thanks for coming out. Oh, wait. Here's an interesting question.
Sancho (Chicago): Bill, Is it possible for Corey Patterson to be productive with a 9/1 k/bb ratio, or will he repeat his performance form last season, when he started well and fizzled?
Bill James: Can you name a player who WAS productive with a 9-1 K/W ratio? I can't think of one offhand. You always want to leave room for the exceptional player, but. . .he'd have to be REALLY exceptional.
Hmm... someone who WAS productive with a high K/BB ratio... Hey Bill, how about Soriano? Soriano was pretty productive with a 6.83 K/BB ratio last year. Come to think of it, Baldelli is also tearing up the league while posting a 9.25 K/BB.
Interesting. I wonder what James would say about their success?
I don't trust Davenport's defensive metrics at all. I think the scale is way off, which exaggerates the difference between a good and bad fielder.
The best estimate of their defensive value that is readily available is Defensive Win Shares. I don't have the split between defensive and offensive Wins Shares on hand, but in the NHBA James ranks Palmeiro #19 among first basemen, with a career total of 308 Shares, a top 5 of 125 and a per 162 of 23.78. McGriff comes in at #21 with 294 Win Shares, a top 5 of 132 and a per 162 of 23.18. The top 3 gives Rafael the edge - 92 to 83.
Those are the rankings through 1999, so the gap has widened a little bit. Palmeiro has had the benefit of hitting in a pretty good hitters' park the last 3 years and McGriff's hitting stats are fairly close to Raffy's over that time span. I doubt that Raffy has a significant defensive edge at this point, since injuries have made him immobile.
But, something that can close some of that gap is McGriff's performance in the playoffs.
Division: AB+W = 43, .409 OBP, .583 SLG
LCS: AB+W = 121, .377 OBP, .477 SLG
World Series: AB+W = 51, .385 OBP, .605 SLG
Raffy:
Division: AB+W = 42, .279 OBP, .375 SLG
LCS: AB+W = 46, .333 OBP, 524 SLG
You'd have to still give it to Raffy, but the gap between them isn't all that much (certainly not a canyon).
Freddie hit better in the playoffs than in the regular season.
The best estimate of their defensive value that is readily available is Defensive Win Shares. I don't have the split between defensive and offensive Wins Shares on hand, but in the NHBA James ranks Palmeiro #19 among first basemen, with a career total of 308 Shares, a top 5 of 125 and a per 162 of 23.78. McGriff comes in at #21 with 294 Win Shares, a top 5 of 132 and a per 162 of 23.18. The top 3 gives Rafael the edge - 92 to 83.
Those are the rankings through 1999, so the gap has widened a little bit. Palmeiro has had the benefit of hitting in a pretty good hitters' park the last 3 years and McGriff's hitting stats are fairly close to Raffy's over that time span. I doubt that Raffy has a significant defensive edge at this point, since injuries have made him immobile.
But, something that can close some of that gap is McGriff's performance in the playoffs.
Division: AB+W = 43, .409 OBP, .583 SLG
LCS: AB+W = 121, .377 OBP, .477 SLG
World Series: AB+W = 51, .385 OBP, .605 SLG
Raffy:
Division: AB+W = 42, .279 OBP, .375 SLG
LCS: AB+W = 46, .333 OBP, 524 SLG
You'd have to still give it to Raffy, but the gap between them isn't all that much (certainly not a canyon).
Freddie hit better in the playoffs than in the regular season.
I just read Bill James's chat wrap and was particularly amused by this exchange:
Jason (Atlanta, GA): ... What mistaken impression about your work would you most like to clear up?
Bill James: Well, the biggest surprise about writing is how hard it is to avoid being misunderstood. Whatever you write, somebody will misunderstand it. But you know, I have to take responsibility for the misunderstandings, too. If I didn't want to be misunderstood, I should have been clearer to begin with.
So, in that light, what I should have said was "While still a great GM, Beane looks THAT much better thanks to three stud pitchers, sort of how Jerry Rice and Joe Montana made each other look even better than they already were -- which was, of course, awfully good, the pinnacle of their profession. I'll still take Beane over anybody else, and I've said exactly that somewhere else on Batter's Box."
Even if I had somehow been crystal clear, I'm sure Craig still would have disagreed with me. Craig, you and I should do a talk radio show together; good friendly banter can provide for some solid entertainment. I, for one, certainly have a face for radio ...
Jason (Atlanta, GA): ... What mistaken impression about your work would you most like to clear up?
Bill James: Well, the biggest surprise about writing is how hard it is to avoid being misunderstood. Whatever you write, somebody will misunderstand it. But you know, I have to take responsibility for the misunderstandings, too. If I didn't want to be misunderstood, I should have been clearer to begin with.
So, in that light, what I should have said was "While still a great GM, Beane looks THAT much better thanks to three stud pitchers, sort of how Jerry Rice and Joe Montana made each other look even better than they already were -- which was, of course, awfully good, the pinnacle of their profession. I'll still take Beane over anybody else, and I've said exactly that somewhere else on Batter's Box."
Even if I had somehow been crystal clear, I'm sure Craig still would have disagreed with me. Craig, you and I should do a talk radio show together; good friendly banter can provide for some solid entertainment. I, for one, certainly have a face for radio ...