Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Monday, April 24, 2006 |
UTK Quick Hits
From the guy so many around here seem to love to hate, Will Carroll, in today's UTK:
- The Angels don’t seem too worried about Bartolo Colon, figuring that the same rest that’s brought Ben Sheets back to his normal form is what Colon will need. Colon has progressed to throwing, though the team is resisting any urge to give their ace a return date. Colon could be back as early as the first week of May — assuming there are no setbacks — but expect the Angels to be more conservative and push to mid-May if needed. The team is also dealing with a strained hamstring for Maicer Izturis. No word on the severity, but any missed time will increase calls for Howie Kendrick.
- Carroll says that both Bobby Crosby and Huston Street should be back with the A's this week, but I find it odd that in both cases, their day-to-day status has gone on longer than than initially announced.
- Speaking of things Athletic and Moneyball generally, dig this:
Steve Stanley retired. Is Mark Teahen the next of the Moneyball class to flame out? Teahen has a chronic shoulder problem that sources in KC say are career threatening “in the sense that by the time he gets healthy, he may not have a job”.
Comments:
How can anyone talk smack about the moneyball draft, especially now.
Joe Blanton
Nick Swisher
Kevin Youkilis (tho not taken by the A's)
Teahan (at least he's in the MLB's)
Was there another team in the 2002 draft that did better? I was looking over the 2002 1st round, and aside from Prince Fielder and Scott Kazmir, most of the 1st rounders have done nothing.
Swisher, Blanton, and Teahan have been the most productive.
Joe Blanton
Nick Swisher
Kevin Youkilis (tho not taken by the A's)
Teahan (at least he's in the MLB's)
Was there another team in the 2002 draft that did better? I was looking over the 2002 1st round, and aside from Prince Fielder and Scott Kazmir, most of the 1st rounders have done nothing.
Swisher, Blanton, and Teahan have been the most productive.
# posted by 
: 4/24/2006 01:03:00 PM
: 4/24/2006 01:03:00 PM
Kevin Youkilis was part of the 2001 draft, not the 2002 draft detailed in Moneyball. Teahen is struggling with a .213/.255/.383 line this year and apparently a raft of injuries; his minor league career was relatively undistinguished, hitting well only in hitter's parks and hitter's leagues. Blanton and Swisher do look good, though.
The reason people are so critical of the Moneyball draft is that it's been presented as the second coming of the Dodgers' 1968 draft, which yielded such stars as Ron Cey, Steve Garvey, and Davey Lopes, the most productive draft haul in history. It just isn't so.
The reason people are so critical of the Moneyball draft is that it's been presented as the second coming of the Dodgers' 1968 draft, which yielded such stars as Ron Cey, Steve Garvey, and Davey Lopes, the most productive draft haul in history. It just isn't so.
I dont think its being presented as the most productive draft in history. I think its just being presented as a better way to draft players using statistical based models, rather than the judgements of scouts.
The book wasnt saying, "this draft class is better than ever", but rather "this method of drafting is better than traditional methods".
Also, a draft is only as good as the overall talent pool for that given year. 2002 might not have been as good of year as 1968. However, a team can only do the best job they can in each given draft. I think the A's bested most other teams in 2002.
That was the point of the book. Not that Brown, Swisher, Teahan, and Blanton were going to be superstars, but rather that the pool of players the A's selected were going to have a higher liklihood of succeeding than other teams'.
The book wasnt saying, "this draft class is better than ever", but rather "this method of drafting is better than traditional methods".
Also, a draft is only as good as the overall talent pool for that given year. 2002 might not have been as good of year as 1968. However, a team can only do the best job they can in each given draft. I think the A's bested most other teams in 2002.
That was the point of the book. Not that Brown, Swisher, Teahan, and Blanton were going to be superstars, but rather that the pool of players the A's selected were going to have a higher liklihood of succeeding than other teams'.
# posted by : 4/24/2006 01:44:00 PM
: 4/24/2006 01:44:00 PM
The book wasnt saying, "this draft class is better than ever", but rather "this method of drafting is better than traditional methods".
Baloney; it was name-calling from stem to stern, leavened with a double shot of arrogance. Why did the A's waste a first-round pick on Jeremy Brown, a player who has yet to have a SLG over .500 in any season with more than 200 AB's?
Even Lewis himself admitted that he fell in love with the story, i.e., what hit the press was hardly balanced. As to productive players from the 2002 draft, non-Moneyball division, I see Khalil Green, Jeff Francouer, B.J. Upton, and Brian McCann... Moneyball obscured the situation with the draft, rather than lifting a light to it.
Baloney; it was name-calling from stem to stern, leavened with a double shot of arrogance. Why did the A's waste a first-round pick on Jeremy Brown, a player who has yet to have a SLG over .500 in any season with more than 200 AB's?
Even Lewis himself admitted that he fell in love with the story, i.e., what hit the press was hardly balanced. As to productive players from the 2002 draft, non-Moneyball division, I see Khalil Green, Jeff Francouer, B.J. Upton, and Brian McCann... Moneyball obscured the situation with the draft, rather than lifting a light to it.
Good thing you waited on the Aybar call-up rumor. Rotoworld reports Kendrick has been called up instead.
# posted by : 4/24/2006 02:30:00 PM
: 4/24/2006 02:30:00 PM
I don't agree with you, however, that Moneyball was seeking to sell the 2002 draft as the second coming of the '68 Dodger draft though. I read the draft chapter again over the weekend, as I was marveling at Swisher throughout the series, and wanted to revisit the moments when Beane lost his scientistic shit over Swisher again. It's clear that Beane's greater discretion in the '02 draft came when he departed from the laptop greenroom and let his scout-like 'sense' sniff out a gamer.
I think Lewis makes it pretty clear that he was seduced by Beane, and forwards that as a caveat, rather than a proof of concept. It doesn't lend weight to your argument that he does so. This was a character piece more than it was a thesis seeking a counterthesis.
How stat hobbyists have dressed up the body after the fact is a separate issue. Manson to the Beatles, and all that.
I think Lewis makes it pretty clear that he was seduced by Beane, and forwards that as a caveat, rather than a proof of concept. It doesn't lend weight to your argument that he does so. This was a character piece more than it was a thesis seeking a counterthesis.
How stat hobbyists have dressed up the body after the fact is a separate issue. Manson to the Beatles, and all that.
# posted by : 4/24/2006 02:52:00 PM
: 4/24/2006 02:52:00 PM
The A's took Jeremy Brown because of his signability. He wasnt going to command a high signing bonus. AS for not SLG over .500, he's a catcher. I'm sure the A's would like him to be the next Piazza, but I dont think they expected him to be.
The Moneyball draft was all about eliminating risk as much as possible, since a small market team like the A's have to have a strong farm system to survive. I think it reeks of sour grapes to concede that the A's draft was anything less than highly successful.
Swisher and Blanton collectively are better than anything the 31 other teams have produced so far in that 2002 draft.
The Moneyball draft was all about eliminating risk as much as possible, since a small market team like the A's have to have a strong farm system to survive. I think it reeks of sour grapes to concede that the A's draft was anything less than highly successful.
Swisher and Blanton collectively are better than anything the 31 other teams have produced so far in that 2002 draft.
# posted by : 4/24/2006 05:56:00 PM
: 4/24/2006 05:56:00 PM
There are some good players from that draft, but I don't think too many teams would complain about getting a first baseman/outfielder who appears to be turning into a star, a solid back-of-the-rotation starter, and a third baseman they packaged in a deal for a critical need.
Shoot, even Jeremy Brown may make it to the bigs as a backup catcher.
As an A's fan, the only name on the list that grates is Dan Meyer's. But he wasn't their pick.
I agree with Maxwell and the other anonymous that it feels you are misrepresenting the book. There is no way Lewis could have known, when he wrote it, how those players would turn out. We still don't know today. Lewis may have fell in literary love with his story, and his main subject, but I don't think the point was that his 2002 draft was the best in history. Lewis was praising Beane's methodology more than his picks.
bear88
Shoot, even Jeremy Brown may make it to the bigs as a backup catcher.
As an A's fan, the only name on the list that grates is Dan Meyer's. But he wasn't their pick.
I agree with Maxwell and the other anonymous that it feels you are misrepresenting the book. There is no way Lewis could have known, when he wrote it, how those players would turn out. We still don't know today. Lewis may have fell in literary love with his story, and his main subject, but I don't think the point was that his 2002 draft was the best in history. Lewis was praising Beane's methodology more than his picks.
bear88
# posted by : 4/24/2006 10:45:00 PM
: 4/24/2006 10:45:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.