OT - most athletes really are morons

[Leebo33]

Epstein is good, but it's nice when you can sign a 37 year old pitcher to a multi year contract at $12M a year. I'm not sure that is within the spirit of moneyball.

Moneyball is about using objective metrics to the greatest extent possible in order to allow you to make better baseball decisions while also taking advantage of the fact that there are other teams out there wit a lot of $$$ who are NOT doing that.

It's not so much not having resources as it is maximizing the ones you have. Not Epstein's fault that John Henry is willing to spend more than some

I'm all in favor of analysis over doing whatever the Pirates do with their money every season. However, I'd imagine that the objective metric for a 37-38 pitcher would be pretty poor. It seems like Epstein invested a lot of money in Curt Schilling based on good old fashioned instinct and intangibles that can't be measured with metrics.

[Jayhawker]

You should really check out the bookMoneyball and you would shake that faulty line of reasoning quickly. Billy Beane has made a mockery of GMs that think exactly like that. The book is an easy, and fun read, as Michael Lewis paints a great picture of life behind the scenes in baseball, as he followed Billy Beane for a year.

Umm...how many Championships does Beane have?

The playoffs are a crapshoot, especially with the wildcard. The standard is consistently hitting those 90 win seasons, giving them a chance every year. Plus, he's doing it on a whole lot less. 2003 was the first year they broke $40 million. There's only a few teams with lower payrolls.

So if you want to measure a team by a short series go ahead. But it's a ridiculous way to do it. You can be unimpressed with him all you want, but the teams he has produced on the budget he is saddled with is amazing. He doesn't do it by overpaying for the flavor of the month.

[Brando70]

You should really check out the bookMoneyball and you would shake that faulty line of reasoning quickly. Billy Beane has made a mockery of GMs that think exactly like that. The book is an easy, and fun read, as Michael Lewis paints a great picture of life behind the scenes in baseball, as he followed Billy Beane for a year.

Umm...how many Championships does Beane have?

The playoffs are a crapshoot, especially with the wildcard. The standard is consistently hitting those 90 win seasons, giving them a chance every year. Plus, he's doing it on a whole lot less. 2003 was the first year they broke $40 million. There's only a few teams with lower payrolls.

So if you want to measure a team by a short series go ahead. But it's a ridiculous way to do it. You can be unimpressed with him all you want, but the teams he has produced on the budget he is saddled with is amazing. He doesn't do it by overpaying for the flavor of the month.

I don't think DB is saying he hasn't done very well with very little in Oakland, but that his approach hasn't gotten him over the playoff hump. There are certainly teams that have done very poorly despite outspending the As, but until Beane's approach at least leads to a World Series appearance, I don't think it can be held up as an example of the right way to do things. It's just one approach.

[Jayhawker]

I'm all in favor of analysis over doing whatever the Pirates do with their money every season. However, I'd imagine that the objective metric for a 37-38 pitcher would be pretty poor. It seems like Epstein invested a lot of money in Curt Schilling based on good old fashioned instinct and intangibles that can't be measured with metrics.

Not intangibles, as much as throwing out useless stats like W-L records for pitchers. Start looking at walks and Hits per nine innings, how long a pitcher lasts. You'd also look at the kind of balls a pitcher allows to be put in play, to see if that will be a factor in your stadium.

I'm guessing the A's spend about the same, if not less money than the Pirates do. Beane's philosophy actually starts in the draft. He avoids high school pitchers like the plague, because stats point out that the likeliehood of predictiing their talent is awful. That also allows him to grab college players earlier, so he gets more of the players he can count on developing than other teams.

I'm telling you, if you read the book, it all starts to make a lot of sense. Baseball has a grand tradition, and it's something I love about the game, but Beane has taken advantage of a lot of baseball folk wisdom to acquire players cheaply, that will produce exactly what he wants from each one of them.

The book is not a bunch of stats. It's actually just a fun read, and cracked me up quite a bit.

[tjung0831]

Good grief, that Beltran deal is crazy... Beltran *might* be a tiny, tiny bit better than J.D. Drew (although I'd hate to have to prove it). But to get that kind of deal in today's market? Man, the Mets are either gonna go boom or bust...

Beltran was the toughest out i've seen in all my years of watching baseball in the NLCS against the Cardinals.

Tim

[Leebo33]

Not intangibles, as much as throwing out useless stats like W-L records for pitchers. Start looking at walks and Hits per nine innings, how long a pitcher lasts. You'd also look at the kind of balls a pitcher allows to be put in play, to see if that will be a factor in your stadium.

I'm guessing the A's spend about the same, if not less money than the Pirates do. Beane's philosophy actually starts in the draft. He avoids high school pitchers like the plague, because stats point out that the likeliehood of predictiing their talent is awful. That also allows him to grab college players earlier, so he gets more of the players he can count on developing than other teams.

I'm telling you, if you read the book, it all starts to make a lot of sense. Baseball has a grand tradition, and it's something I love about the game, but Beane has taken advantage of a lot of baseball folk wisdom to acquire players cheaply, that will produce exactly what he wants from each one of them.

The book is not a bunch of stats. It's actually just a fun read, and cracked me up quite a bit.

I read the book and enjoyed it. I just need more evidence to determine if it works better than any other formula out there. The Cleveland Indians had similar success from 1995-2001. Did they use "moneyball"? The Twins are on a nice streak with 3 straight division titles. Do they use those techniques? The Pirates had a damn fine streak from 1990-92 with three straight years of 95+ wins despite a payroll in the lower half.

Sometimes you may just win because you have three of the best pitchers in baseball that start almost 60% of your games over the winning period. Maybe it is more than that. I don't know yet.

[RobVarak]

I'm all in favor of analysis over doing whatever the Pirates do with their money every season. However, I'd imagine that the objective metric for a 37-38 pitcher would be pretty poor. It seems like Epstein invested a lot of money in Curt Schilling based on good old fashioned instinct and intangibles that can't be measured with metrics.

I don't know. Schilling remains an excellent pitcher by most objective measures, and we're in a brave new world of pitching - with more guys in their mid-late 30's pitching much better and longer than they used to. Plus he's able to call on God for direct, personal intervention when necessary. Can't put a price on that sh$t

[krustylew]

I'm all in favor of analysis over doing whatever the Pirates do with their money every season. However, I'd imagine that the objective metric for a 37-38 pitcher would be pretty poor. It seems like Epstein invested a lot of money in Curt Schilling based on good old fashioned instinct and intangibles that can't be measured with metrics.

Not intangibles, as much as throwing out useless stats like W-L records for pitchers. Start looking at walks and Hits per nine innings, how long a pitcher lasts. You'd also look at the kind of balls a pitcher allows to be put in play, to see if that will be a factor in your stadium.

I'm guessing the A's spend about the same, if not less money than the Pirates do. Beane's philosophy actually starts in the draft. He avoids high school pitchers like the plague, because stats point out that the likeliehood of predictiing their talent is awful. That also allows him to grab college players earlier, so he gets more of the players he can count on developing than other teams.

I'm telling you, if you read the book, it all starts to make a lot of sense. Baseball has a grand tradition, and it's something I love about the game, but Beane has taken advantage of a lot of baseball folk wisdom to acquire players cheaply, that will produce exactly what he wants from each one of them.

The book is not a bunch of stats. It's actually just a fun read, and cracked me up quite a bit.

I think all of the hoopla over Beane is a tad too premature.

Let's see, if I inherit a team that already has Jason Giambi, Eric Chavez, Miguel Tejada, and Tim Hudson; then draft Mulder and Zito with high first round draft picks. I think the chances of my team competing are pretty damn good, regardless of what else I do.

As all of the home grown talent moves on to greener pa$ture$, we will finally see if Beane's moneyball system has really changed the game.

[Leebo33]

OK, back on topic. Players really are morons. I guess that Miami edumacation isn't quite what it used to be:

"The alphabet test, to me, is kind of confusing," McClain said. "I don't think anybody's asked Mr. Taylor to say the alphabet since fourth grade."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/f ... taylor.ap/

[Kazuya]

Regarding Helton and Coors field: Helton was 7th in the league in OPS+ last year, and tied for 9th among active players. Wherever he hits, he's one of the best in the league and a bargain at 11 mil.

[RobVarak]

Regarding Helton and Coors field: Helton was 7th in the league in OPS+ last year, and tied for 9th among active players. Wherever he hits, he's one of the best in the league and a bargain at 11 mil.

Bargain? No. Appropriately valued? Maybe for this year. Let's check back in 2009, when they will still be paying the guy. And this isn't a fixed-costs, time value of money situation. The Rockies basically agreed to subsidize his decline phase.

Don't get me wrong. I like Helton. That contract just sucks and limits the Rockies roster flexibility.

[Kazuya]

Regarding Helton and Coors field: Helton was 7th in the league in OPS+ last year, and tied for 9th among active players. Wherever he hits, he's one of the best in the league and a bargain at 11 mil.

Bargain? No. Appropriately valued? Maybe for this year. Let's check back in 2009, when they will still be paying the guy. And this isn't a fixed-costs, time value of money situation. The Rockies basically agreed to subsidize his decline phase.

Don't get me wrong. I like Helton. That contract just sucks and limits the Rockies roster flexibility.

So how much is he worth? Because you know, as soon as you tell me how much he is worth I'm going to find a player making that who is half as good. Alex Rodriguez makes 25 million. Carlos Beltran makes 17 million. So Helton is a bargain at 11 million. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you.

[Kazuya]

Helton represents decent value at his 2005 salary of $12.6M if he's healthy. The problem is when his escalation kicks in in 2006 and he's making $17M. Then a small-to-mid market team is paying a disproportionate share of team payroll to a great hitter, but a 32 year old with chronic back problems and far less defensive value than Arod or Beltran.

It's a pretty untradeable contract. By the time his contract runs out, he'll own every Rockies hitting record. His team won't have won squat.

Irrelevant to me... somebody brought up that Helton wasn't playing up to his contract... I said, whoa.... you other guys brought up future years of his contract.

I suppose that now that I look at it (the years ahead), it does look a bit fishy. But Helton has been underpaid for some time now, so maybe he just gets all his money at the end. Regardless, all I ever said was that Todd had played up to his contract so far.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I also said he was a bargain at 11 mil.

[Brando70]

But Kaz, you're lumping in all offensive baseball players. Doesn't work that way. You can find a lot of guys who can give you 90% of Helton's production at 1B for a lot less of the cost.

Power-hitting short stops and five-tool center fielders are much harder to find, and therefore command higher salaries.

The #1 thing you can't do in any case is pay a lot for guys who don't play. That's the real downer of the Helton contract. Injury-prone players don't tend to get healthier as they get older. Every year, as he plays fewer and fewer games and makes more money, he becomes less tradeable.

[RobVarak]

So how much is he worth? Because you know, as soon as you tell me how much he is worth I'm going to find a player making that who is half as good. Alex Rodriguez makes 25 million. Carlos Beltran makes 17 million. So Helton is a bargain at 11 million. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you.

I've said three times now that he's currently worth his annual salary. Probably. Maybe someone else did, but I didn't say he was overpaid this year. My point relates back to my initial post about bad contracts. For at least the third time: The contract isn't bad because of the salary it's paying him this year. It's the length of the obligation that makes it burdensome to the Rockies. I think this is rather self-evident, and I don't understand why you keep ignoring the point.

As for your amazing ability to point out players who make more, that's a simple and rather obvious function of an inefficient market. You can do that with virtually any player in any context. It's like brain-dead sportswriters who write annual articles about how Player X should be in the HoF because Player Y is. It's not logic as much as it is illustration.

Furthermore, I would argue that Helton at $11m this year is still wildly overpriced given the distortion to replacement level value that Coors creates. I could replace his OPS with a league average hitter, watch Coorsflation set in and spend that money smarter in another place. This is especially true of a 1b.

Which, incidently, is what the last two Rockies GM's have tried to do.

[Kazuya]

But Kaz, you're lumping in all offensive baseball players. Doesn't work that way. You can find a lot of guys who can give you 90% of Helton's production at 1B for a lot less of the cost.

I think you're exaggerating a bit... he's a lot better than most 1B's by a pretty big margin. Who did you have in mind?

Power-hitting short stops and five-tool center fielders are much harder to find, and therefore command higher salaries.

The #1 thing you can't do in any case is pay a lot for guys who don't play. That's the real downer of the Helton contract. Injury-prone players don't tend to get healthier as they get older. Every year, as he plays fewer and fewer games and makes more money, he becomes less tradeable.

I agree.

[Kazuya]

I've said three times now that he's currently worth his annual salary. Probably. Maybe someone else did, but I didn't say he was overpaid this year. My point relates back to my initial post about bad contracts. For at least the third time: The contract isn't bad because of the salary it's paying him this year. It's the length of the obligation that makes it burdensome to the Rockies. I think this is rather self-evident, and I don't understand why you keep ignoring the point.

I think we mostly agree, but just got a few things crossed out of who said what.

Furthermore, I would argue that Helton at $11m this year is still wildly overpriced given the distortion to replacement level value that Coors creates. I could replace his OPS with a league average hitter, watch Coorsflation set in and spend that money smarter in another place. This is especially true of a 1b.

I just don't think this is true. His park adjusted OPS was 7th in the NL, and better than every other first baseman besides Albert Pujols. He also consistently ranks high in every other park independent statistic, including win shares (second only to Pujols again among first basemen). Helton is just a good hitter, far above replacement level.