Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Sunday, December 19, 2004 |
Chass: Economics Wilts "Moneyball" Fantasy
Murray Chass, the New York Times baseball writer, opines that Moneyball was a mere fantasy; the unpleasant reality is that small market teams can do only so much for only so long before the dollars catch up to them.
THOSE of us who do not subscribe to the "Moneyball" approach to baseball, the theories laid out in the book that celebrates Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics, have been quick to point to the real strength of the Athletics in recent years, the pitching triumvirate of Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito.And indeed, it's arguable that Beane did the right thing. Blez saw the bell curve, and the cost of keeping the big three together just didn't make sense, not without an injection of talent from the lower levels, the raw fuel of an Athletic baseball club that has to be recognized as one of the most consistent winning machines ever, yet also -- to its fans -- one of the most frustrating ever because of their failure to succeed at higher levels.And then there was one.
Beane, a talented general manager whatever his philosophy, traded Hudson to the Atlanta Braves last Thursday and 48 hours later traded Mulder to the St. Louis Cardinals. In making those deals, Beane contributed to the likelihood of those teams repeating as division champions.
...
Beane did not trade Hudson and Mulder because he discovered a flaw in the team's makeup. He did not trade Mulder because he staggered to an 0-4 record and a 7.27 earned run average in his last seven starts, dooming the Athletics to their final resting place - one game behind the first-place Anaheim Angels.
Why did Beane shred his vaunted starting rotation?
"We needed to," he said in a telephone interview yesterday.
"We're constantly playing a shell game here," he added. "The status quo was not within our means. We need to be in a situation where our team is getting progressively better, and the status quo could have put us in a position where we'd be worse."
Could any three younger members of the starting corps evolve into Hudson, Mulder and Zito?You have to respect what the A's have done; Harden has become a decent regular, and Bobby Crosby earned his ROY award. The questions before the house:"The three guys we had together were pretty historical," Beane said. "If they became half of those guys, they'd be pretty good pitchers. But it's not fair to make that comparison. We had a pretty historical group. Nevertheless we feel they can be very good big league pitchers."
- How well will the A's do this year? Have they established themselves as a contender even despite the loss of two-thirds of their troika?
- If they aren't really a contender, how soon will they return to the postseason?
Comments:
the A's lineup doesn't have a beltre and sexson, teixeira and young and blalock and soriano, or even a vlad and GA, but there aren't any gaping holes, and the pitching staff is better that texas and seattle. the guys are young, but i expect them to win the division by say, 2007.
-vishal
-vishal
# posted by 
: 12/19/2004 09:18:00 PM
: 12/19/2004 09:18:00 PM
1. They are still a division contender. Anaheim has done essentially nothing in this offseason to improve itself. Texas has done /literally/ nothing to improve itself. Seattle has improved its offense with Beltre and Sexson, but that's not 25 games worth of improvement, and they haven't done a thing to improve last year's horrid pitching staff.
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2004/12/19/143538/40
There's a link to a post I made to AN detailing what I got when I started looking at the numbers one can expect from the A's offense. The arrival of Kendall, Ginter, Dan Johnson, Nick Swisher and Charles Thomas are a clear improvement over outgoing players Miller, McLemore, Karros, Kielty and McMillon. Also the bullpen has improved as well with the introduction of Cruz and Calero, as well as the addition by subtraction that was Arthur Rhodes.
As the post details, the A's outgoing starters (Mulder, Hudson and Redman) were not actually fantastic last year. Between the improvements to the A's offense and bullpen, the incoming rookies don't have to be Tim Hudson for the team to maintain last year's runs scored-to-allowed ratio. They don't even have to be Rich Harden.
By my estimation, if the three rookies will maintain last year's pythagorean win-loss record if they combine for a 6.00 RA. Now that's not ERA, but 6.00 RA is still well below expectations for highly-touted pitching prospects. For comparison, in his much-publicized failure of a season in 2004, Arthur Rhodes' RA was 5.35.
For further comparison, the Colorado Rockies' team RA was 5.79.
Even accounting for some optimistic streak on my part, the A's are, at worst, a small amount worse than they were in 2004.
Billy Beane did what needed to be done, not because of what is and is not written in Moneyball. He did it because the real threat to the A's is that even their league-median level attendance might drop dramatically if the A's entered a prolonged rebuilding period.
What he's done is turned 2005 into the "rebuilding" year, and it's going to become apparent during the next season that a "rebuilding" Athletics team is still a force in the AL West. In 2006, barring either Moreno or Nintendo deciding to become Steinbrenner West, I view the A's as favorites to win the division.
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2004/12/19/143538/40
There's a link to a post I made to AN detailing what I got when I started looking at the numbers one can expect from the A's offense. The arrival of Kendall, Ginter, Dan Johnson, Nick Swisher and Charles Thomas are a clear improvement over outgoing players Miller, McLemore, Karros, Kielty and McMillon. Also the bullpen has improved as well with the introduction of Cruz and Calero, as well as the addition by subtraction that was Arthur Rhodes.
As the post details, the A's outgoing starters (Mulder, Hudson and Redman) were not actually fantastic last year. Between the improvements to the A's offense and bullpen, the incoming rookies don't have to be Tim Hudson for the team to maintain last year's runs scored-to-allowed ratio. They don't even have to be Rich Harden.
By my estimation, if the three rookies will maintain last year's pythagorean win-loss record if they combine for a 6.00 RA. Now that's not ERA, but 6.00 RA is still well below expectations for highly-touted pitching prospects. For comparison, in his much-publicized failure of a season in 2004, Arthur Rhodes' RA was 5.35.
For further comparison, the Colorado Rockies' team RA was 5.79.
Even accounting for some optimistic streak on my part, the A's are, at worst, a small amount worse than they were in 2004.
Billy Beane did what needed to be done, not because of what is and is not written in Moneyball. He did it because the real threat to the A's is that even their league-median level attendance might drop dramatically if the A's entered a prolonged rebuilding period.
What he's done is turned 2005 into the "rebuilding" year, and it's going to become apparent during the next season that a "rebuilding" Athletics team is still a force in the AL West. In 2006, barring either Moreno or Nintendo deciding to become Steinbrenner West, I view the A's as favorites to win the division.
# posted by : 12/20/2004 01:11:00 AM
: 12/20/2004 01:11:00 AM
To me, at this time, it looks like a bad year upcoming for west coast baseball... The Giants have Bonds, the Angels have Vlad, and that is about it... If Beltre and Sexson have big years in Seattle the Mariners could win some games, but I have a hunch that Beltre will struggle in Safeco Field and who knows whether Sexson can even swing a bat.... Texas has no starting pitching except for Drese and a very old Kenny Rogers... The A's have Harden, Zito and three question marks... The Angels have two old outfielders in Finley and G. Anderson, a rookie third baseman, and a weaker bullpen behind questionable starting pitching... The Dodgers right now look like a highway that has been all torn up with multiple detours to who knows where... The Giants somehow managed to make themselves even older this off-season, although I for one did not think that was possible.... I think I have convinced myself that no one will win the AL and NL West...
Stan
Stan
# posted by : 12/20/2004 10:35:00 PM
: 12/20/2004 10:35:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.