Messages

Forum Index : MLB Betting : Messages Page 1 of 5  1 2 3 4 5  
Author: [MLB Betting] Topic: whats so great about moneyball?
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#1
Posted: 2/7/2012 11:39:31 PM

when all this was happening didnt the a's have zito and others as monstrous starting rotation.


they just got lucky they all blossomed at the same time....what did moneyball have to do with anything?

quote
packers1992 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
packers1992
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9247
Location: Michigan
#2
Posted: 2/7/2012 11:45:59 PM

well lewlew i guess it was they could win on the cheap. I agree with you lewlew they didn't win becaus ethey had a RF play 1B or whatever they won because they had these 3 aces

1. Tim Hudson

2. Barry Zito

3. Mark Mulder

Never hurts to have good pitching

quote
TheGoldenGoose
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
TheGoldenGoose
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21744
Location: Belize
#3
Posted: 2/7/2012 11:50:20 PM

It also helps to have good pitchers in a pitcher's ballpark.

Sprinkle in a little speed and defense and you have moneyball.
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#4
Posted: 2/8/2012 1:44:59 AM
Did you read the book? Did you understand the concept behind the book? Did you realize that the A's of that time were performing better than teams with 2 and 3 times their payroll? Did you ever question why this team, with a bottom of the barrel payroll, is winning 20 straight games with talent that everyone else cast aside? 

It's about finding inefficiencies in a market place, and then exploiting them. It's also about finding paradigms in a market place that has had a singular way of doing things for 150 years. 

Yes it is about the Oakland A's and Baseball. It's also about questioning the way things have always been done and seeing if there is a better, more efficient way of doing them now. 

Yes the A's had excellent pitching, but do you understand how they got that pitching and why they couldn't keep that pitching? I know Oakland is the ultimate pitchers park(maybe San Diego as well now) but that can't possibly explain Zito's self destruction with that monster contract in San Fransisco. 

This book/movie/concept is so much more than the A's having good pitching. It's about finding new ways of doing things more efficiently. 
quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#5
Posted: 2/8/2012 2:04:43 AM

if moneyball so good why cant they keep on winning.  now they cant spot inefficiencies.....whats up with that.



the stars were lined up in their favor. happens!


the way to win is spend money to get star players and hope some 2ndary players have good years.



quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#6
Posted: 2/8/2012 2:30:41 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by lewlew:

if moneyball so good why cant they keep on winning.  now they cant spot inefficiencies.....whats up with that.



the stars were lined up in their favor. happens!


the way to win is spend money to get star players and hope some 2ndary players have good years.




The secret got out and the market caught up with itself. It got to the point where half the league was looking for similar players.....and then overpaying for them. Flooded the market. 

I'm not saying it's a perfect science. Billy Beane missed on as many players as were "diamonds in the rough" so to speak. Even if you look at the draft featured in the book most of those guys never reached the majors for any significant amount of time. 

The issue of "Moneyball" though isn't necessarily about winning a World Series(although Major League Baseball would have really been sucking his person at if he did) but it's about being efficient, or more efficient, than the money your owner is putting in. 

When you put all the teams on a payroll scale shouldn't all the top teams be making the playoffs? Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, the top spending teams should always make the playoffs year in and year out. 

Now that doesn't always happen, there are outliers(Twins, Rays, Brewers, the early 2000 A's etc). But when when of these teams is able to do it on a consistent basis for a half decade then someone probably needs to examine what they are doing that teams that are spending 2 to 3 times as much aren't. That's what it's all about. 

As to your point in your last sentence, the A's can't really spend a ton of money(same with the Pirates and Rays and Royals and whoever else has cheap ownership). Ownership just won't let it happen. So they have to go about trying to field winners in a different manner i.e. the draft. 

Drafted players are owned by the teams that drafted them for the first 6 years of their pro baseball life. These times basically need to find players that will sign cheaper signing bonuses according to where they are drafted, and have a realistic chance at being productive in those first 6 seasons at the MLB level. Because once that first contract is up, they are leaving town for a huge payday. 

I know people like to say the starts lined up for them and they got a few bounces here and there, but it simply isn't true. The stars don't line up for a half decade when your players are passing through your organization like a revolving door. How many players were on the A's team in 2001 or 2002 that were on the team that went to the ALCS in 2006? I don't know but I don't think it was many. It wasn't the manager either because every manager couldn't wait to get out of Oakland. 

I can honestly ask you has there ever been a team that had more success per dollar spent on players as the Oakland A's did during the time span of 2000-2010? 

I don't know the answer but I have to think that if you were to break down dollar spent on players vs wins or playoff appearances they would have to be at the top of the list. Realistically, if you were to chop the Yankees payroll by about 2/3rds, do you really think they would have anywhere near the success they have over the last decade? 
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#7
Posted: 2/8/2012 2:35:47 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/tom_verducci/08/02/billy.beane.moneyball/index.html
quote
KeyElement
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
KeyElement
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 9513
Location: Arizona
#8
Posted: 2/8/2012 7:28:55 AM
Ktrain: Those are among the best responses I have EVER read on Covers. My sincere compliments sir.

quote
Iw1nBets send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Iw1nBets
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 58452
Location: Cocos Keeling
              Islands
#9
Posted: 2/8/2012 7:46:28 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:


The secret got out and the market caught up with itself. It got to the point where half the league was looking for similar players.....and then overpaying for them. Flooded the market. 

I'm not saying it's a perfect science. Billy Beane missed on as many players as were "diamonds in the rough" so to speak. Even if you look at the draft featured in the book most of those guys never reached the majors for any significant amount of time. 

The issue of "Moneyball" though isn't necessarily about winning a World Series(although Major League Baseball would have really been sucking his person at if he did) but it's about being efficient, or more efficient, than the money your owner is putting in. 

When you put all the teams on a payroll scale shouldn't all the top teams be making the playoffs? Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, the top spending teams should always make the playoffs year in and year out. 

Now that doesn't always happen, there are outliers(Twins, Rays, Brewers, the early 2000 A's etc). But when when of these teams is able to do it on a consistent basis for a half decade then someone probably needs to examine what they are doing that teams that are spending 2 to 3 times as much aren't. That's what it's all about. 

As to your point in your last sentence, the A's can't really spend a ton of money(same with the Pirates and Rays and Royals and whoever else has cheap ownership). Ownership just won't let it happen. So they have to go about trying to field winners in a different manner i.e. the draft. 

Drafted players are owned by the teams that drafted them for the first 6 years of their pro baseball life. These times basically need to find players that will sign cheaper signing bonuses according to where they are drafted, and have a realistic chance at being productive in those first 6 seasons at the MLB level. Because once that first contract is up, they are leaving town for a huge payday. 

I know people like to say the starts lined up for them and they got a few bounces here and there, but it simply isn't true. The stars don't line up for a half decade when your players are passing through your organization like a revolving door. How many players were on the A's team in 2001 or 2002 that were on the team that went to the ALCS in 2006? I don't know but I don't think it was many. It wasn't the manager either because every manager couldn't wait to get out of Oakland. 

I can honestly ask you has there ever been a team that had more success per dollar spent on players as the Oakland A's did during the time span of 2000-2010? 

I don't know the answer but I have to think that if you were to break down dollar spent on players vs wins or playoff appearances they would have to be at the top of the list. Realistically, if you were to chop the Yankees payroll by about 2/3rds, do you really think they would have anywhere near the success they have over the last decade? 


very nice words.. if only I knew how to read
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#10
Posted: 2/8/2012 11:55:43 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by KeyElement:

Ktrain: Those are among the best responses I have EVER read on Covers. My sincere compliments sir.


Thank you sir. 

I just feel that most people CHOOSE not to try and understand the concept of Moneyball. The haven't read the book, which goes WAY MORE in depth into the fundamentals and concepts than the movie does. I did feel the movie was accurate but you can only put so much into a movie. 

There is actually a thread in the Food and Fitness forum about the best value for liquors which kind of parallels this concept. 

The OP asks for value on booze, not necessarily the best quality. Next posters starts criticizing original posters choice of vodka because of it's mid level pricing and talks about Belvedere, Ciroc, Grey Goose, etc. 

Obviously those are top shelf stuff, but they are also 2 1/2 times the price of Smirnoff, but the question(and this is personal choice obviously) is the top shelf stuff 2 1/2 times the quality of stuff like Smirnoff or another similar priced bottle? Can they justify spending 2 1/2 times for the top shelf stuff. 

Now spending $30 on a bottle of vodka is no big deal for any of us. But when you are talking about spending millions on a Baseball player over multiple years it does become more important for certain teams to get better bargains for their money invested. 
quote
mmac66 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
mmac66
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 12725
Location: South Africa
#11
Posted: 2/8/2012 12:31:51 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:


Thank you sir. 

I just feel that most people CHOOSE not to try and understand the concept of Moneyball. The haven't read the book, which goes WAY MORE in depth into the fundamentals and concepts than the movie does. I did feel the movie was accurate but you can only put so much into a movie. 

There is actually a thread in the Food and Fitness forum about the best value for liquors which kind of parallels this concept. 

The OP asks for value on booze, not necessarily the best quality. Next posters starts criticizing original posters choice of vodka because of it's mid level pricing and talks about Belvedere, Ciroc, Grey Goose, etc. 

Obviously those are top shelf stuff, but they are also 2 1/2 times the price of Smirnoff, but the question(and this is personal choice obviously) is the top shelf stuff 2 1/2 times the quality of stuff like Smirnoff or another similar priced bottle? Can they justify spending 2 1/2 times for the top shelf stuff. 

Now spending $30 on a bottle of vodka is no big deal for any of us. But when you are talking about spending millions on a Baseball player over multiple years it does become more important for certain teams to get better bargains for their money invested. 

Sounds like value......the people who don't appreciate what Oakland did are the same people who argue there is no value in a bet that loses......I'm sure we'll have that debate in here again this year.

quote
Iw1nBets send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Iw1nBets
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 58452
Location: Cocos Keeling
              Islands
#12
Posted: 2/8/2012 12:42:42 PM
is there anyway i can get the text in this thread converted into an audio format 
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#13
Posted: 2/8/2012 12:44:06 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Iw1nBets:

is there anyway i can get the text in this thread converted into an audio format 


I will start the audio version later today. 
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#14
Posted: 2/8/2012 12:44:32 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by mmac66:

Sounds like value......the people who don't appreciate what Oakland did are the same people who argue there is no value in a bet that loses......I'm sure we'll have that debate in here again this year.


quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#15
Posted: 2/8/2012 12:46:35 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:


It also helps to have good pitchers in a pitcher's ballpark.

Sprinkle in a little speed and defense and you have moneyball.

If you read the book you would know that Beane doesn't like his players stealing and defense is not a major concern. 

It really was about OPS scoring runs for less money per player. 

If they A's could, I'm sure they would sign the best players in MLB. But they don't have the money to do so. 
quote
Sparky10191 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Sparky10191
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 67522
Location: New York
#16
Posted: 2/8/2012 1:21:12 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:

Did you read the book? Did you understand the concept behind the book? Did you realize that the A's of that time were performing better than teams with 2 and 3 times their payroll? Did you ever question why this team, with a bottom of the barrel payroll, is winning 20 straight games with talent that everyone else cast aside? 

It's about finding inefficiencies in a market place, and then exploiting them. It's also about finding paradigms in a market place that has had a singular way of doing things for 150 years. 

Yes it is about the Oakland A's and Baseball. It's also about questioning the way things have always been done and seeing if there is a better, more efficient way of doing them now. 

Yes the A's had excellent pitching, but do you understand how they got that pitching and why they couldn't keep that pitching? I know Oakland is the ultimate pitchers park(maybe San Diego as well now) but that can't possibly explain Zito's self destruction with that monster contract in San Fransisco. 

This book/movie/concept is so much more than the A's having good pitching. It's about finding new ways of doing things more efficiently. 

What does that mean, exactly? Haven't the Mets, Mariners and Cubs been abysmal with payrolls far larger than other teams?

Andrew Friedman > Billy Beane...without question.
quote
Sparky10191 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Sparky10191
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 67522
Location: New York
#17
Posted: 2/8/2012 1:33:25 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:


I can honestly ask you has there ever been a team that had more success per dollar spent on players as the Oakland A's did during the time span of 2000-2010? 


I'll continue to argue that the Rays out-Billy Beane'd...Billy Beane.
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#18
Posted: 2/8/2012 1:36:43 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Sparky10191:


I'll continue to argue that the Rays out-Billy Beane'd...Billy Beane.

I would agree with this currently. 

The Rays, in a way, took some of Beane's concepts and applied them to the Tampa franchise. Not the exact concepts but definitely concepts that travel along the lines of thinking outside of the box. 

I believe, and I have to look this up, the Rays hired a couple of guys from Wall Street(much like Beane hired Ivy Leaguers) to re-examine the practice of running a team. 
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#19
Posted: 2/8/2012 1:58:21 PM
Sparky,

I want to address your first comment but I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. I think you're almost proving the point that the A's were trying to prove, but I'm not sure. Those are pretty much the teams that people were comparing the A's against. Teams with huge payrolls and season win totals that didn't justify them.
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
Sparky10191 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Sparky10191
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 67522
Location: New York
#20
Posted: 2/8/2012 2:08:06 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Ktrain:

Sparky,

I want to address your first comment but I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. I think you're almost proving the point that the A's were trying to prove, but I'm not sure. Those are pretty much the teams that people were comparing the A's against. Teams with huge payrolls and season win totals that didn't justify them.

The point is...just because a team spends money...doesn't mean you should chalk them up to be in the playoffs every year. Money doesn't buy championships. The guys you put on the field, do. I just don't think it's fair to say that whatever team spends all the money...should win (not saying you said that...it's just the usual response). 
quote
Sparky10191 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Sparky10191
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 67522
Location: New York
#21
Posted: 2/8/2012 2:10:23 PM
I guess what I'm saying is...just because the A's did more than teams with bigger payrolls doesn't necessarily mean the teams with bigger payrolls were any good. Spending doesn't make you good. Spending can help at times...but you can't just throw money at players and expect them to play well.
quote
baronman
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
baronman
Participation Meter
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 706
Location:
#22
Posted: 2/8/2012 2:28:30 PM
lewlew,true story the guy that played giambi in the movie was one of my friends nephew. never been in movie before.played baseball in college was extra. producer like him gave him speaking part. he was one dancing on the table ,got in trouble with brad pitt.also was traded away in seen with pitt & coach in office he got $30,000 for that his acting debut. thats why i like money ball. just rented it again last week.
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#23
Posted: 2/8/2012 3:45:52 PM
Sparky,

Were arguing the same point. I agree with you that blindly spending a bunch of money doesn't equate to playoff appearances or wins.

The book Moneyball wanted to examine why the A's were so efficient compared to teams that had much higher payrolls. What they came up with is not an exact science, but a method by which to run a team that can't afford to outspend the "richer teams".

And I agree that Friedman is a much better GM than Beane is right now. But it is possible that without Brand's success in the early 2000's guys like Epstein and Friedman might have never gotten a chance to be in their positions. After all the Red Sox, even with their ability to spend, still hired Bill James.

You don't necessarily have to follow Beane's ideas to a letter to have a paradigm about how Baseball is played or what makes a team win. But this thinking outside of the box is essential for teams like Tampa, Oakland, Pitt, and K.C. if they ever have hope of winning with their current payrolls.
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
Ktrain send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Ktrain
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5837
Location: Nevada
#24
Posted: 2/8/2012 3:47:10 PM
*Beane's success......
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
lewlew send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
lewlew
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2102
Location:
#25
Posted: 2/8/2012 4:47:09 PM

just had lunch at mcd and saw that beane got extension thru 2019.


dude, just accept the fact that the stars just lined up.......it happens in sports.   is someone going to come up with a name for butlers success the last few years. butler can do the same thing the next 200 years and wont get a sniff of a championship.



the true test of any theory is the test o time.   seems moneyball is at the current time failing.

quote
Forum Index : MLB Betting : Messages Page 1 of 5  1 2 3 4 5  
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.