MLB 2023 Season

[monkeyman576]

My mistake. Carry on.

[Cobra Mgr]

I don't blame the Dodgers for being livid on this one. This wasn't even close.

[Cobra Mgr]

Video claiming to be of when 2 women were shot 2 ChiSox game. Must have been a bullet from under the stands maybe? I had to look @ it a number of times to see where it must have taken place. Look about 12-15 rows above the "m" in the State Farm sign. You see they start to react to it about 10-15 secs into the vid. Lady in black shirt & white hat.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

1. I admitted I may not have the right idea about it earlier because..... 2, I didn't read the book. I have read many summaries of it. That is why I gave my definition of it.

So you're telling me I'm completely wrong that Moneyball is about how Beane kept Oakland winning on a low budget thanks to using analytical data. That is completely false?

Re-read what I said.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Re-read what I said.

I don't need to. What I'm asking for is a yes or no.

[Cobra Mgr]

Never saw a pitcher get hurt like this. And what was the catcher doing?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Never saw a pitcher get hurt like this. And what was the catcher doing?

Yikes. Beaned by his own teammate!

And yes, C made a mistake throwing to 1B. I guess C was thinking that the runner at 2B needed to retreat but instead he parked there, forcing the other runner to sprint for 3B.

Another question would be, what were the Mets runners doing? My guess is that it was supposed to be a double-steal but the lead runner missed the signal.

I hope P is okay. I imagine concussion protocol was called for.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I don't need to. What I'm asking for is a yes or no.

I said that Moneyball was from the start about applying economic ideas - specifically, finding and exploiting market inefficiencies. It was never really about any particular kind of statistical analysis, it was about finding inefficiencies and exploiting them. You keep coming back talking about OPS but again, OPS was never, ever, ever the basic point of playing Moneyball. At the end of the day it's going to be really, really hard in this day and age to discover market inefficiencies without doing some sort of data analysis - lots of people have good baseball eyes and those people have been tracking baseball for a century and a half, so that kind of anecdote-based analysis is probably pretty warmed-over - but again, the whole entire point of the book was "hey, this baseball team won a lot of games in a small market because they found some market inefficiencies and exploited them".

The answer is "yes" that on some level statistical analysis is probably needed but "no no no" that "Moneyball is dead" just because the exact stats that the A's used in 2001 were used by everyone 10-15 years ago and have largely been pushed aside in favor of better analysis. As long as sports franchises are run by people, market inefficiencies will exist and there will be means to exploit those.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I said that Moneyball was from the start about applying economic ideas - specifically, finding and exploiting market inefficiencies. It was never really about any particular kind of statistical analysis, it was about finding inefficiencies and exploiting them. You keep coming back talking about OPS but again, OPS was never, ever, ever the basic point of playing Moneyball. At the end of the day it's going to be really, really hard in this day and age to discover market inefficiencies without doing some sort of data analysis - lots of people have good baseball eyes and those people have been tracking baseball for a century and a half, so that kind of anecdote-based analysis is probably pretty warmed-over - but again, the whole entire point of the book was "hey, this baseball team won a lot of games in a small market because they found some market inefficiencies and exploited them".

The answer is "yes" that on some level statistical analysis is probably needed but "no no no" that "Moneyball is dead" just because the exact stats that the A's used in 2001 were used by everyone 10-15 years ago and have largely been pushed aside in favor of better analysis. As long as sports franchises are run by people, market inefficiencies will exist and there will be means to exploit those.

I never claimed OPS was the basic point.

And you still have not offered a simple yes or no to my simple question: Is Moneyball about how Beane kept Oakland winning on a low budget thanks to using analytical data?

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Yikes. Beaned by his own teammate!

And yes, C made a mistake throwing to 1B. I guess C was thinking that the runner at 2B needed to retreat but instead he parked there, forcing the other runner to sprint for 3B.

Another question would be, what were the Mets runners doing? My guess is that it was supposed to be a double-steal but the lead runner missed the signal.

I hope P is okay. I imagine concussion protocol was called for.

This is how I know y'all are not Mets fans. I read five words ("Beaned by his own teammate") and my mind instantly went to Craig Swan getting hit by a Ron Hodges throw to 2B, costing the Mets their ace.

(Whom, ironically, the Mets had refused to trade to California, previously, costing them the chance to get Willie Aikens and Dickie Thon in return. And perhaps costing Thon a Hall of Fame career, because even though Big Shea was a pitchers' park, it was no Astrodome, and Thon's excellent 1983 season would have shined even brighter in NY. And then Thon suffered a devastating beaning [irony #2] in early 1984, at the hands of Mike Torrez of the…Mets.

[6th game of the season; the game before was the MLB debut for Dwight Gooden.

Shortly after that, the Mets decided to trust their young talent and waived the veteran space-fillers on their staff, including Torrez, Dick Tidrow, and a comebacking Craig Swan. And so Swan ended up an Angel, after all.])

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I never claimed OPS was the basic point.

And you still have not offered a simple yes or no to my simple question: Is Moneyball about how Beane kept Oakland winning on a low budget thanks to using analytical data?

Yes, Moneyball (book and movie) was about Beane working within his budget by trusting stats over scouting. It's also a crock of ****, since what made the A's such a force in the early 2000s was developing three aces simultaneously (Hudson, Mulder, Zito) and having an offense driven by the distinctly low-walk offense of Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez, which is inconvenient to the narrative and thus was removed.

However, the quote in this thread that kicked off the whole "Moneyball is dead" discussion, was a snarky remark at the giant flop of the 2023 Mets despite the best efforts of Uncle Stevie and his Endless Payroll. "Moneyball" only in the sense of "try to buy a pennant", which is precisely the opposite fo the problems that Beane faced.

(See also the concurrent failings of the aptly-named Brian Cashman and his Bronx Bankrolls.)

[monkeyman576]

The Dodgers and Braves and Rangers and Astros have payrolls that are quite high and are still doing fairly well as teams so you can't say that buying wins is totally poor strategy but it seems like there are more teams that are doing well on the bottom half of the payroll list than the top half.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I never claimed OPS was the basic point.

And you still have not offered a simple yes or no to my simple question: Is Moneyball about how Beane kept Oakland winning on a low budget thanks to using analytical data?

I clearly already answered that and your refusal to accept my answer makes me think you're trying to lawyer me into some weird contradiction or something. I'm done.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Yes, Moneyball (book and movie) was about Beane working within his budget by trusting stats over scouting. It's also a crock of ****, since what made the A's such a force in the early 2000s was developing three aces simultaneously (Hudson, Mulder, Zito) and having an offense driven by the distinctly low-walk offense of Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez, which is inconvenient to the narrative and thus was removed.

However, the quote in this thread that kicked off the whole "Moneyball is dead" discussion, was a snarky remark at the giant flop of the 2023 Mets despite the best efforts of Uncle Stevie and his Endless Payroll. "Moneyball" only in the sense of "try to buy a pennant", which is precisely the opposite fo the problems that Beane faced.

(See also the concurrent failings of the aptly-named Brian Cashman and his Bronx Bankrolls.)

Yeah, this on the other hand is a pretty legitimate criticism of the book. Like buddy, let's not pretend for a second that your team's rise was built on the fact that you just plain drafted 3 great pitchers as well as a good collection of young talent, some of whom were classic "Moneyball" guys (Giambi springs to mind) and some of whom were not. Again, as noted before, the book itself was clear that the actual mechanism or stats used were not important - the idea of finding market inefficiencies was the important bit - but I 100% agree that Lewis completely glosses over things that don't really "count" as being part of the overall narrative and also, in the offing, highlights a few things that... I hate to say, the scouts might have been kind of right about (Jeremy Brown comes to mind - he was the guy the scouts laughed off because he wasn't in very good shape in college - who was drafted in the extra-picks part of the first round in 2002. He wound up being a minor bust, getting a grand total of 11 at-bats in the major leagues).

This was far from his worst book - I'd give that to Blind Side - and to be fair to the book itself it did get picked up by baseball people and there's a whole lot more statistical analysis done on the game as a result.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I clearly already answered that and your refusal to accept my answer makes me think you're trying to lawyer me into some weird contradiction or something. I'm done.

A clear answer would be "yes" or "no". I ain't about to be gaslighted. All you have to do is say one or the other. If that is beyond your capabilities, then I'm not the one w/the problem, am I?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

A clear answer would be "yes" or "no". I ain't about to be gaslighted. All you have to do is say one or the other. If that is beyond your capabilities, then I'm not the one w/the problem, am I?

oh BS I answered "it's not really a yes or no question" and even clarified and you just don't like the answer. Go victim blame someone.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

The Dodgers and Braves and Rangers and Astros have payrolls that are quite high and are still doing fairly well as teams so you can't say that buying wins is totally poor strategy...

In the Dodgers' case, and I'm sure for most of those others mentioned to one degree or another, it's simply a case of spending a lot of money very wisely by...

- Signing limited by very smartly-targeted free agents
- Retaining key guys that are affordable
- Maintaining a robust farm system
- Smartly-targeting reclamation projects
- Making good trades, as needed

Analytics surely plays a huge role in all of that. Also helping is averaging over 3m in attendance each year, and have the largest (?... as of 2020) local TV deal.

I guess the Padres would be the example of spending a lot of money un-wisely... Contrast the character & leadership - and productivity - of guys like Betts, Freeman, Kershaw... with Machado, Soto, Tatis...

On a related note, Andrew Friedman was skewered by fans and the local sports media for his low-key activity at the trading deadline. However, in hindsight nearly a month later, it looks like he knew what he was doing:

- Lance Lynn: After being just dreadful with the White Sox, he's 4-0 in 5 starts with LA, with an ERA of 2.03. Definitely helping with LA's need for reliable starting pitching.
- Kiké Hernandez: After a slash of 222/279/320 w the BoSox, he's 275/323/451 with LA, and helping fill gaps at numerous positions.
- Amed Rosario: His avg is a bit lower compared to when he was with Cleveland, but his power numbes are up (& he's had some big hits), and his play at 2B - a position he had never before played in the majors - has been stellar.
- Ryan Yarbrough: Was 4-5 with a 4.24 ERA as a swingman in KC, is 3-0, 2.35 if 5 appearances with LA as long & middle reliever.
- Joe Kelly: Was 1-5, 4.97 ERA w the White Sox; currently on the 15-day DL with a short-term injury but was 1-0, 0.00 in 4 relief appearances for LA, helping settle what until recently was a pretty shaky bullpen.
- Ryan Brasier: Not a deadline acquisition (signed June 4), but after posting a 7.29 ERA pver 21 innigs with Boston, he's definitely helped solidify LA's pen by going 2-0, 1.03 ERA in 26 innings.

As always, Friedman will be judged by how far LA goes in the postseason. But his recent player moves - each of which addressed a glaring need - couldn't have worked out better, so far.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

oh BS I answered "it's not really a yes or no question" and even clarified and you just don't like the answer. Go victim blame someone.

Yes it is. But for some reason, you don't want to do it. Or are incapable. Neither is my problem.

So I will go on w/my previous statement since you have been unable to handle this like a grown man. Which is...............

I knew all along moneyball would eventually not work out. Because once more & more teams began to copy his method, the data would change the original conclusions & also make it harder to find bargains that way.

[Brad K]

Cobra, if its not about economics why does Peter Brand in the movie have a degree in economics? And that's the degree Paul DePodesta has.

(If anyone wants to comment on this suggest you quote the above for reference. Cobra possibly still has me on ignore due to his belief the Immaculate Reception was an illegal play and so needs the quote as reference.)

[Cobra Mgr]

Five weeks left in the season. Some tight races down the stretch. Everyone was looking @ Texas holding off Houston. Until, suddenly Seattle. The AL WC race is still in flux w/Toronto in striking range of the AL West trio. Baltimore past Tampa & looks like they aren't interested in falling back.

The NL Central is kinda weird to me. Milwaukee has been the best team all season, but cold streaks or hot streaks by others has kept them from running away with it. The WC is trying to get some separation. Only 6.5 games between the leading Phillies & "6th place" Miami. Should mean a lot of important games down the stretch. Dodgers, 4 games behind ATL for the best record have a 4 game series this week vs the Braves. A decisive victory in that series could decide home advantage for the playoffs.

So what is everyone's predicted finish for the last month? Which 6 in each league is still playing after Oct 1st?