1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

I was wrong

Discussion in 'Houston Astros' started by jopatmc, Aug 15, 2008.

  1. texanskan

    texanskan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,565
    Likes Received:
    163
    question? You don't like the unbalanced schedule in baseball but you also complained about the lack of extra division games in basketball

    Can't have your cake and eat it to
     
  2. jopatmc

    jopatmc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    15,370
    Likes Received:
    390
    Yeah, I'm definitely more of a basketball guy, forgot you can't trade draft picks. Basketball is the sport I played. But I believe in the concept that Billy Beane is using in Oakland. I also believe that pitching is the key precious commodity in MLB. I think we should hire the best pitching coaches and pitching scouts and scout all the arms we can find, then draft all the arms we can draft, and trade Lee, Tejada, Valverde, and even Oswalt for as many young arms as we can get our mits on, then develop those arms as much as possible until we find 3 aces. Bring those aces to the majors, then when they hit their peak, trade them for big bats and bring up our next round of aces that have been developed. Shouldn't it be obvious that pitching is the most valuable commodity and it is a lot easier to trade a quality pitcher for quality hitters than it is to trade a quality hitter for a quality pitcher?
     
  3. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    "Moneyball" has been exposed for the fraud that it is. If it is such a great plan for a franchise, tell me...how many championships has Oakland won in the last decade? None. Tell me how well Oakland is doing in the AL West. They are 56-66 this season. It is a losing way to build a franchise. Oakland is, to a degree, abandoning this approach. It just doesn't work. Since Beane became GM, they have gotten worse, not better.

    Agreed, with the caveat that you cannot win games if you cannot score runs. In other words, you can't ignore the other 8 positions on the field and expect to win games.

    Agreed, but we also have to draft quality position players behind those arms or we will lose a lot of 3-2 and 2-0 games.

    Problematic at best:
    1. No trade clauses.
    2. You have to find a willing trade partner.
    3. You may be overestimating (in the case of Valverde and Tejada grossly overestimating) what you will get in return.

    A very optimistic prediction.

    So you'll go from having great pitching and no hitting to a slugging offense and no pitching? Not helpful.

    Not only that, but when a team trades every good pitcher they have as he hits his peak, they are usually called the Washington Nationals or the Kansas City Royals. You essentially become a farm system for the rest of MLB, and never very competitive.

    Wrong. It is easier to trade quality pitchers for prospects which may or may not pan out as productive major leaguers.
     
  4. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    Who in the world said I don't like unbalanced scheduling? I love unbalanced scheduling.
     
  5. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    I can't argue with any of that either...i didn't say it was a good situation to be in.
     
  6. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,682
    Likes Received:
    16,206
    What?? Billy Beane became Oakland's GM in 1997, at which point they were consistently finishing 3rd or 4th in the NL West. In 1999, they finished 2nd, and then in 2000 they won their division. They won their division in 5 out of 7 years, finishing 2nd the other two. Last year was the first time they sucked since he was GM. And they've consistently outperformed their payroll - which is the point of moneyball. The best way to build a team is simply to outspend the rest of the world, which is why the Yankees and REd Sox are consistently so good - the idea of Moneyball is how to be competitive with a payroll disadvantage - it's not "the best way to build a team", but "the best way to spend a limited amount of resources". Yeah, they aren't very good this year either - but they have the 28th highest salary out of 30 teams (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=oak - and that's counting all of Frank Thomas' $12MM salary which they don't owe). Give Oakland the same salary as other teams and that strategy would likely run circles around them.

    Certainly, they haven't had playoff success, but neither had the Astros until recently. Judging teams by a 5 game series in baseball is silly - the 1998 Astos were a fantastic team (better than the 2004/2005 Astros) - and didn't win a series.

    If this is true, then that supports the Moneyball argument - because it's only recently that they haven't done so well. If that's come at the same time they have start abandoning the approach...
     
  7. meh

    meh Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    16,191
    Likes Received:
    3,407
    One thing to note is that the Astros are over .500 while sporting a MINUS 39 runs to runs allowed rate.

    We are VERY lucky. And our record is hardly an indicator of our true ability.
     
  8. bobrek

    bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 1999
    Messages:
    36,288
    Likes Received:
    26,645
    Generally, run differential is a quick way to check out a team's overall performance, but the Astros' RD is really skewed this year. They have had 8 games where they lost by 8+ runs and only 2 where they have won by 8+ runs. Those 10 games alone account for over a -50 RD.
     
  9. meh

    meh Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    16,191
    Likes Received:
    3,407
    But isn't that the whole point though? That if you're decent, you don't get your ass handed to you like the Astros quite a few times this year?

    Granted, they're still not "100 loses" bad. But this is a bad year to have lots of luck on your side. I at least want to be in the top half of the draft, so we don't have to give up our first rounder even if we do sign a top FA.
     
  10. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    They have been in state of decline since 2002.
    By season (winning % in parenthesis)

    2002 (.636)
    2003 (.593)
    2004 (.562)
    2005 (.543)
    2006 (.574)
    2007 (.469)
    2008 (.465)

    This is not a team that Moneyball is being served particularly well by. Beane came in at a time where there was nowhere to go but up. He made some good moves, got some good prospects...the A's started winning. All of a sudden "Moneyball" was en vogue. Over the last 5 years, things have gotten progressively worse and people are starting to rethink the wisdom of Moneyball.

    Trading away your young, homegrown talent (when they are actually good) has proven to not be particularly wise.
     
  11. Nick

    Nick Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    50,836
    Likes Received:
    17,228
    This is exactly the problem when the general public seems to think they're experts on everything thanks to ESPN and the internet.

    Moneyball does not say to "trade all your young prospects in their prime, and you can win with a bunch of unprovens." Its simply a philosophy of taking advantage of areas that other teams are under-utilizing. When teams were drafting all HS players, Beane went to drafting college players... and got more MLB-ready players. When teams started following suit, he went to drafting HS players since some pretty good prospects were now being passed over.

    The reason why he has to trade away players is simply because their owner won't be opening his wallet to keep guys. Thus, Beane has had to change his strategy of developing the system from virtually every other team in the big leagues which will have some financial flexibility to keep players, all the while keeping his team somewhat competitive.

    The Pirates also operate under a similiar financial constraint... why is it that the A's have had success, while the Pirates have floundered? They certainly haven't played in an easier league or division. And there wasn't some "luck" factor where the Pirates lost a couple of great can't-miss prospects to injury. You're spouting off these winning percentages like they're nothing special... but when your team has an operating budget of $50 MILLION... and they're still winning their division and making the playoffs more years than not... you have no business criticizing how a GM has adapted and utilized his strategy.

    It still comes down to scouting, valuing players in the draft, and making shrewd decisions when it comes time to sell off a player you're not going to be able to re-sign. Beane has done THAT better than most GM's, and this was in large part because of the financial restraints placed by HIS owner (name the last trade or FA he let-go that he really got burned on... Mulder, Hudson, Zito, Giambi, Tejada, and all the rest were never has productive as they were with the A's).

    Perhaps Beane would be just an ordinary nobody GM if he was on a team like the Yankees which could resign anybody they wanted, and pick up any salary in a trade if neccesary.. or maybe, his background of scouting and maximizing ineffeciencies is just the thing a big-money/no-risk team needs to ensure that they are getting the most of what they pay for.
     
  12. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,682
    Likes Received:
    16,206
    That's an unfair standard of expectations. In 2002, they won 103 games. In 2001, they won 102 (and finished 2nd). That's not a pace any team can sustain. How many teams have won 100 games three straight years in MLB history?

    From 2002 to 2006, they won 103, 96, 91, 88, and 93 games. That's not a decline - that's pretty much sustained excellence/being damn good. There's not a lot of teams that did that - and I'd guess no other team with similar payroll constraints got close.

    Who have they traded/let go that they really regretted? Mulder got them Haren. Zito is beyond terrible. Hudson had his best seasons in Oakland. They'd have had to pay ace prices for a #2. Giambi went to hell with the steroid blow up. Tejada certainly was a loss for them, but they couldn't afford him. Haren/Harden is yet-to-be-determined depending on what happens with the prospects they got.
     
  13. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    after 162 games, you are what your record says you are, no matter what run differential says.
     
  14. jopatmc

    jopatmc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    15,370
    Likes Received:
    390

    They have been very successful in light of their payroll. My point about Beane is we should use his approach to build a minor league system that can produce top notch talent. Then we can use some of our money to keep the talent we want around for their prime years. Oakland doesn't have the money to sign guys to big contracts. We do. But we shouldn't waste money paying guys big contracts unless we are going to be ultra-competitive. We've got a tremendous payroll that is not even going to make the playoffs this year. It's wasted money. And our farm system is hollow. There's not much there outside that catcher we just took in the last draft. You've got to build the farm system and you've got to horde pitching talent. Then turn it into something.
     
  15. msn

    msn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    Help me out here. What is it that you love? Because so far, I freaking hate it.

    We only see the Dodgers and Braves 6 or 7 times a year, but we see the Brewers and the Pirates like 40 times a year. Are you kidding me? I miss all the animosity with the Dodgers back in the 80s.

    And I get so damn sick of the Brewers, Reds, and Pirates all the time.

    We used to have 18 games with the West teams and 12 games with the East teams, IIRC. I'd love to get rid of the Interleague schedule and get back some of the games against the Dodgers, Braves, and Mets.
     
  16. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    I love it because if you're going to have division championships mean something, you have to have it that way. In a sport where 6 of the 8 teams that get to the playoffs are division winners, playing within the division is most important. The NFL structures itself that way, too, obviously.

    I'm fine entirely doing away with interleague. But I wouldn't trade away unbalanced scheduling.
     
  17. MaxwellsTemper

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would love to get rid of interleague play. It seems like any time its brought up though, the big wigs use the same argument.. "But Yankees v. Mets, Cubs v. White Sox!!"

    I hate interleague play.
     
  18. msn

    msn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    I just crunched some numbers.

    We could have 12 games against Central teams, 9 against West, and 9 against East. That puts at 150 games. The other 12 can be 4 AL teams. No more of this home-and-home crap. Yankees host the Mets one year, Mets host the Yanks the next. And, to hell with the "silver boot".

    The problem, however, is for non-Central teams. If they have 12 games against in-division teams and 9 games against others, that is only 135 games, leaving 27 games. I suppose if there are 12 AL games for these teams, that leaves 15 games to arrange somewhere.

    Better yet, someone figure it up where all 162 games happen in the NL.
     
  19. msn

    msn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    2,094
    That makes sense, thanks. I guess I'm just being a fuddy-duddy or stick in the mud. I miss the NL West; I miss bench-clearing brawls with the Dodgers and Giants. At least this year, for good ol' times sake, we got to go into SD in April and get our asses kicked. It was the 80s all over again, minus the Rainbow Guts.
     
  20. meh

    meh Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    16,191
    Likes Received:
    3,407
    Actually, it's not. You're always going to have "lucky" teams and "unlucky" teams. Even after 162 games. Granted, it's not nearly as wild as an 82 game season or NFL's 16 game season, but there's still some descripencies. But that's besides the point.

    My point was that because of the Astros run differential, we're more likely to see this team dropping downward the last 30 games or so than going up.
     

Share This Page