Matt39 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Elitist nerdy BS or cold hard facts that tell the entire story? Has Moneyball been a positive influence or no? Just wondering some of your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Yes, I do. Not to the ridiculous extent that some people do, but I am a believer in sabermetrics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 Yes, I do. Not to the ridiculous extent that some people do, but I am a believer in sabermetrics. Unfortunately for some, there is absolutely no middle ground. Many of the stats are important, but like all stats never tell the entire story. Im sure there will be people 20 years from now trying to tell me how great a player Raffy Palmiero was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 When I was a teenager I would play microleague baseball all the time. It was based on the #s. Now if a guy was getting up in the 9th and he was 3 for 4 in the game, sometimes you would sit him. Because the odds weren't good that he was going to get 4 hits. You know how hard it is to get 4 hits in a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavrik Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Elitist nerdy BS or cold hard facts that tell the entire story? Has Moneyball been a positive influence or no? Just wondering some of your opinions. I think moneyball has been a positive influence. It has helped those smaller market teams like Oakland and Minnesota compete by focusing on developing young talent rather than signing marquee free agents. Now the downside of this is that once those players make it big, by the time they're contract is up, they're gone because those teams can't afford to pay the contract the players is going to demand. But these teams have so much talent in their systems that this difference is going to be negligable and you'll just have another to take their place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I think moneyball has been a positive influence. It has helped those smaller market teams like Oakland and Minnesota compete by focusing on developing young talent rather than signing marquee free agents. Now the downside of this is that once those players make it big, by the time they're contract is up, they're gone because those teams can't afford to pay the contract the players is going to demand. But these teams have so much talent in their systems that this difference is going to be negligable and you'll just have another to take their place. The Yankees haven't won since they went crazy spending money. Now if they truly do have a solid pipeline of young start pitchers (Jaba, Hughes, Kennedy, etc) then it would be scary. If you can build a solid nucleus from within and add to it through free agency and trades with money not being a big concern -- that is a scary thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavrik Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The Yankees haven't won since they went crazy spending money. Now if they truly do have a solid pipeline of young start pitchers (Jaba, Hughes, Kennedy, etc) then it would be scary. If you can build a solid nucleus from within and add to it through free agency and trades with money not being a big concern -- that is a scary thought! They do have a good nucleus to work on. I think they're problem with their free spending is they would spend all their cash on damaged goods, guys like Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, and others who got signed based on what they did years earlier rather than what they were doing in the present, which was having declining skills. It is hard to build on a nucleus when the owner adopts a "you either do the job immediately or you're gone" attitude towards rookies and newer players, but Steinbrenner seems to be stepping away from that a bit and letting Cashman have some more free rein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 They do have a good nucleus to work on. I think they're problem with their free spending is they would spend all their cash on damaged goods, guys like Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, and others who got signed based on what they did years earlier rather than what they were doing in the present, which was having declining skills. It is hard to build on a nucleus when the owner adopts a "you either do the job immediately or you're gone" attitude towards rookies and newer players, but Steinbrenner seems to be stepping away from that a bit and letting Cashman have some more free rein. I think that mentality is changing. Years ago George would have been pissed at Jaba for the wild pitches. "A warrior would not have been fazed by the bugs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I think that mentality is changing. Years ago George would have been pissed at Jaba for the wild pitches. "A warrior would not have been fazed by the bugs". A couple of years ago Jaba would have been traded for Sammy Sosa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_blood Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Bull****. Man has always looked for universal solutions from equations, and now it has diffused down into baseball. Let me give the important stats: rbis, hits, stolen bases, dingers, era, fielding percentage, saves, and wins and losses. (AND POSTSEASON NUMBERS) Then, you go beyond the numbers to judge a player, but there is and will never be a science of baseball. It's not science, its ****ing baseball, ask the A's how it has worked out with them lately, and their supposed centerpiece, Nick Swisher. It's okay to consider the formulas, but to completely subscibe to it is pure bull****. It's all from little nerdy douches, people like John Clayton(yes, wrong sport, but understand the point), that think they can bring their own little importance, but they can't, because they suck at life, but rather than live the rest of their lives in mediocrity of teaching High School math, they made formulas that brought answers to questions that could already be answered by comparisons and just looking at the flat numbers. I hate the so called "sabermetrecists", because as stated before, its 84.56354363% BULL ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Like most stats I think sabermetrics is a good guide, but not the be all end all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Like most stats I think sabermetrics is a good guide, but not the be all end all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Bull****. Man has always looked for universal solutions from equations, and now it has diffused down into baseball. Let me give the important stats: rbis, hits, stolen bases, dingers, era, fielding percentage, saves, and wins and losses. (AND POSTSEASON NUMBERS) Then, you go beyond the numbers to judge a player, but there is and will never be a science of baseball. It's not science, its ****ing baseball, ask the A's how it has worked out with them lately, and their supposed centerpiece, Nick Swisher. It's okay to consider the formulas, but to completely subscibe to it is pure bull****. It's all from little nerdy douches, people like John Clayton(yes, wrong sport, but understand the point), that think they can bring their own little importance, but they can't, because they suck at life, but rather than live the rest of their lives in mediocrity of teaching High School math, they made formulas that brought answers to questions that could already be answered by comparisons and just looking at the flat numbers. I hate the so called "sabermetrecists", because as stated before, its 84.56354363% BULL ****. RBIs mean absolutely nothing. Wins and losses (as an individual statistic) mean even less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Bull****. Man has always looked for universal solutions from equations, and now it has diffused down into baseball. Let me give the important stats: rbis, hits, stolen bases, dingers, era, fielding percentage, saves, and wins and losses. (AND POSTSEASON NUMBERS) Then, you go beyond the numbers to judge a player, but there is and will never be a science of baseball. It's not science, its ****ing baseball, ask the A's how it has worked out with them lately, and their supposed centerpiece, Nick Swisher. It's okay to consider the formulas, but to completely subscibe to it is pure bull****. It's all from little nerdy douches, people like John Clayton(yes, wrong sport, but understand the point), that think they can bring their own little importance, but they can't, because they suck at life, but rather than live the rest of their lives in mediocrity of teaching High School math, they made formulas that brought answers to questions that could already be answered by comparisons and just looking at the flat numbers. I hate the so called "sabermetrecists", because as stated before, its 84.56354363% BULL ****. RBIs mean absolutely nothing. Wins and losses (as an individual statistic) mean even less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 The Yankees haven't won since they went crazy spending money. Now if they truly do have a solid pipeline of young start pitchers (Jaba, Hughes, Kennedy, etc) then it would be scary. If you can build a solid nucleus from within and add to it through free agency and trades with money not being a big concern -- that is a scary thought! The idea that you can win the world series every year is just unrealistic. You can't build a team for the playoffs. You can build a team that makes the playoffs every year which is what the yankees have done for 12 years. Once you get into the playoffs it's a complete crapshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 The Yankees haven't won since they went crazy spending money. Now if they truly do have a solid pipeline of young start pitchers (Jaba, Hughes, Kennedy, etc) then it would be scary. If you can build a solid nucleus from within and add to it through free agency and trades with money not being a big concern -- that is a scary thought! The idea that you can win the world series every year is just unrealistic. You can't build a team for the playoffs. You can build a team that makes the playoffs every year which is what the yankees have done for 12 years. Once you get into the playoffs it's a complete crapshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 The idea that you can win the world series every year is just unrealistic. You can't build a team for the playoffs. You can build a team that makes the playoffs every year which is what the yankees have done for 12 years. Once you get into the playoffs it's a complete crapshoot. It really isn't a crapshoot if you have no starting pitching. The Yankees have slugged their way to the postseason recently by scoring 6 runs a game during the regular season. ONce the postseason starts and you see better pitching you need above average pitching yourself. Not much of a crapshoot when you don't have it. Which is why the Yankees have been bounced in round 1 so many times. But they have talent in the system. Which is why I want Torre back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 The idea that you can win the world series every year is just unrealistic. You can't build a team for the playoffs. You can build a team that makes the playoffs every year which is what the yankees have done for 12 years. Once you get into the playoffs it's a complete crapshoot. It really isn't a crapshoot if you have no starting pitching. The Yankees have slugged their way to the postseason recently by scoring 6 runs a game during the regular season. ONce the postseason starts and you see better pitching you need above average pitching yourself. Not much of a crapshoot when you don't have it. Which is why the Yankees have been bounced in round 1 so many times. But they have talent in the system. Which is why I want Torre back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 It really isn't a crapshoot if you have no starting pitching. The Yankees have slugged their way to the postseason recently by scoring 6 runs a game during the regular season. ONce the postseason starts and you see better pitching you need above average pitching yourself. Not much of a crapshoot when you don't have it. Which is why the Yankees have been bounced in round 1 so many times. But they have talent in the system. Which is why I want Torre back. Wang had been one of the better starters in the AL for 2+ years and pettitte pitched great. Wang just didn't have it which is what can happen in such small sample sizes. I'd consider CC Sabathia one of the best pitchers in baseball and he's been terrible this postseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 It really isn't a crapshoot if you have no starting pitching. The Yankees have slugged their way to the postseason recently by scoring 6 runs a game during the regular season. ONce the postseason starts and you see better pitching you need above average pitching yourself. Not much of a crapshoot when you don't have it. Which is why the Yankees have been bounced in round 1 so many times. But they have talent in the system. Which is why I want Torre back. Wang had been one of the better starters in the AL for 2+ years and pettitte pitched great. Wang just didn't have it which is what can happen in such small sample sizes. I'd consider CC Sabathia one of the best pitchers in baseball and he's been terrible this postseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Wang had been one of the better starters in the AL for 2+ years and pettitte pitched great. Wang just didn't have it which is what can happen in such small sample sizes. I'd consider CC Sabathia one of the best pitchers in baseball and he's been terrible this postseason. Wang is okay. Technically you can say he is one of the better starters. And I was busting sawx fans earlier this eyar saying wang was gonna win the cy young. But wang gives up almost a run more per game on the road in his career per game. Not good. Wang is a good start who gets a lot of run support during the regular season. I just hope he isn't getting any game one assignments next year in the postseason. Although if they hire Tony LaRussa it won't matter because they will be so good they can't lose regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Wang had been one of the better starters in the AL for 2+ years and pettitte pitched great. Wang just didn't have it which is what can happen in such small sample sizes. I'd consider CC Sabathia one of the best pitchers in baseball and he's been terrible this postseason. Wang is okay. Technically you can say he is one of the better starters. And I was busting sawx fans earlier this eyar saying wang was gonna win the cy young. But wang gives up almost a run more per game on the road in his career per game. Not good. Wang is a good start who gets a lot of run support during the regular season. I just hope he isn't getting any game one assignments next year in the postseason. Although if they hire Tony LaRussa it won't matter because they will be so good they can't lose regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Wang is okay. Technically you can say he is one of the better starters. And I was busting sawx fans earlier this eyar saying wang was gonna win the cy young. But wang gives up almost a run more per game on the road in his career per game. Not good. Wang is a good start who gets a lot of run support during the regular season. I just hope he isn't getting any game one assignments next year in the postseason. Although if they hire Tony LaRussa it won't matter because they will be so good they can't lose regardless. Wang's road/home ERA splits are WAY overblown. His 7+ ERA on turf inflates all his other road stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Wang is okay. Technically you can say he is one of the better starters. And I was busting sawx fans earlier this eyar saying wang was gonna win the cy young. But wang gives up almost a run more per game on the road in his career per game. Not good. Wang is a good start who gets a lot of run support during the regular season. I just hope he isn't getting any game one assignments next year in the postseason. Although if they hire Tony LaRussa it won't matter because they will be so good they can't lose regardless. Wang's road/home ERA splits are WAY overblown. His 7+ ERA on turf inflates all his other road stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Wang's road/home ERA splits are WAY overblown. His 7+ ERA on turf inflates all his other road stats. I guess he can be a # 1 starter in years that they don't face a turf team in the postseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I guess he can be a # 1 starter in years that they don't face a turf team in the postseason. And when gnats are not in the forecast and the moon is in a waxing phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Once you get into the playoffs it's a complete crapshoot. So does that mean that the "dynasty' talk of the Yankees doesn't really amount to much? They were just lucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I guess he can be a # 1 starter in years that they don't face a turf team in the postseason. There are 2 turf teams in the AL and one of those teams is getting a grass field in 09. I just want my stalker to know that I have him on my ignore list and I won't be responding to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 So does that mean that the "dynasty' talk of the Yankees doesn't really amount to much? They were just lucky? I think that argument only holds water when it's being discussed with somebody who believes that the majority of resluts in MLB are based on good and bad luck as opposed to just being a good or bad player/team. JMO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I think that argument only holds water when it's being discussed with somebody who believes that the majority of resluts in MLB are based on good and bad luck as opposed to just being a good or bad player/team. JMO of course. LOL thats about the funniest way to twist my words i've seen yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 There are 2 turf teams in the AL and one of those teams is getting a grass field in 09. I just want my stalker to know that I have him on my ignore list and I won't be responding to him. Having a stalker is an honor young man. Don't take these things lightly. There will come a day when you are an old man and you will be alone, wishing you had a stalker. Appreciate it man, appreciate it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Having a stalker is an honor young man. Don't take these things lightly. There will come a day when you are an old man and you will be alone, wishing you had a stalker. Appreciate it man, appreciate it! If the stalker was female i would view it as such. I don't need the attention of some 40 year old loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Having a stalker is an honor young man. Don't take these things lightly. There will come a day when you are an old man and you will be alone, wishing you had a stalker. Appreciate it man, appreciate it! I have a stalker on the board too Max. My stalker is super deterimined though. Not only does he neg rep me, IM me and reply to almost everything I say on here, but he sends me private messages to my Yahoo instant messanger. Talk about being a psycho. I won't reveal his identity though. He might get "mad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I have a stalker on the board too Max. My stalker is super deterimined though. Not only does he neg rep me, IM me and reply to almost everything I say on here, but he sends me private messages to my Yahoo instant messanger. Talk about being a psycho. I won't reveal his identity though. He might get "mad"Why are you still trying to completely put words in my mouth to make me look bad then? You're the douchbag. I only IM'd you to tell you to leave me the hell alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.