All we hear is how great of an idea the concept of moneyball is. The idea itself is not bad. But it is time to question how effective it has been. The Oakland Athletics have been the poster child for the moneyball ways, as well as their general manager Billy Beane. Several other teams have incorporated aspects of moneyball, but whether their success can be put strictly on the moneyball ways is up for debate.
And how has it worked over the last five seasons for the moneyball A's? Anybody need a reminder? 2007:76 wins 86 losses, 2008:75-86, 2009:75-87, 2010:81-81, 2011:74-88. Moneyball is the way to go, huh? At least the Mets were a game from the playoffs in 2007 and 2008. And are the A's on the verge of becoming a bonified playoff team for 2012 and 2013? Not even close. So please stop with the guarantee that moneyball is the solution to building a winner. Lets go back even further. The A's enjoyed success prior to 2007. How many World Series did they win? How many did they even get to? But Billy Beane has become this legend that supposedly came up with this formula to win. HE HAS NOT WON ANYTHING! Unless an organization and a fanbase is happy with a couple of playoff appearances. And lets be honest. Did the early 2000's A's really have a chance against the Yankees, Angels or any other teams that were built to win. You can throw out that expression that "anything can happen in the postseason." But the A's did have their chance. If they choose to build on what they had. But they let the moneyball formula get to their head. Maybe cases could be made individually for trading and/ or letting go Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito. And of course Dan Haren was acquired in the Mulder trade. But how do you explain the trade for Matt Holiday? Yes, the Cardinals gave you something for him, but to get him you traded Carlos Gonzalez, who is one of the better young players in the game today. Teams go nowhere when they have no desire to keep their own players.
If you are willing to spend money on the draft, you better be willing to spend on the players you drafted when its time to pay them as major leaguers. If not, why waste the money on the draft?
Right now the A's are getting what they deserve. What can they sell to their fans now? That they are moving? Maybe they can blame it all on the Mets new bench coach, Bob Geren.
Maybe Billy Beane can tell us what "bargains" he is interested in off the dollar rack. Keep preaching how this is the formula to win. The best way to back it up is to have some hardware to show. And the A's have nothing. They had something... but they let it all walk away with a selfish, money saving philosophy that has not been proven to work. You can catch lightning in a bottle every now and then, but more times than not, its not going to work.
It is an insult to the game that they made a book and now a movie on a formula that, at the very least, is not consistent. I say it doesn't work. To win, you need to retain your own good players unless you have younger players that can step in. But at some point, an organization has to choose a group of players to stick with and pay. Or your organization will become what the Oakland Athletics have become, a perennial losing team that is once again at the bottom of the league. How is that better than the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Kansas City Royals, two other habitually losing teams? But lets make a movie about Scott Hatteberg; the average Joe of baseball players. And lets again remember, the A's at their best won NOTHING!
Using sabermetric stats is a good resource to build a winning baseball team. The A's are proving that you cannot win on JUST that alone. Money has to be spent in some way, shape or form.
And how has it worked over the last five seasons for the moneyball A's? Anybody need a reminder? 2007:76 wins 86 losses, 2008:75-86, 2009:75-87, 2010:81-81, 2011:74-88. Moneyball is the way to go, huh? At least the Mets were a game from the playoffs in 2007 and 2008. And are the A's on the verge of becoming a bonified playoff team for 2012 and 2013? Not even close. So please stop with the guarantee that moneyball is the solution to building a winner. Lets go back even further. The A's enjoyed success prior to 2007. How many World Series did they win? How many did they even get to? But Billy Beane has become this legend that supposedly came up with this formula to win. HE HAS NOT WON ANYTHING! Unless an organization and a fanbase is happy with a couple of playoff appearances. And lets be honest. Did the early 2000's A's really have a chance against the Yankees, Angels or any other teams that were built to win. You can throw out that expression that "anything can happen in the postseason." But the A's did have their chance. If they choose to build on what they had. But they let the moneyball formula get to their head. Maybe cases could be made individually for trading and/ or letting go Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito. And of course Dan Haren was acquired in the Mulder trade. But how do you explain the trade for Matt Holiday? Yes, the Cardinals gave you something for him, but to get him you traded Carlos Gonzalez, who is one of the better young players in the game today. Teams go nowhere when they have no desire to keep their own players.
If you are willing to spend money on the draft, you better be willing to spend on the players you drafted when its time to pay them as major leaguers. If not, why waste the money on the draft?
Right now the A's are getting what they deserve. What can they sell to their fans now? That they are moving? Maybe they can blame it all on the Mets new bench coach, Bob Geren.
Maybe Billy Beane can tell us what "bargains" he is interested in off the dollar rack. Keep preaching how this is the formula to win. The best way to back it up is to have some hardware to show. And the A's have nothing. They had something... but they let it all walk away with a selfish, money saving philosophy that has not been proven to work. You can catch lightning in a bottle every now and then, but more times than not, its not going to work.
It is an insult to the game that they made a book and now a movie on a formula that, at the very least, is not consistent. I say it doesn't work. To win, you need to retain your own good players unless you have younger players that can step in. But at some point, an organization has to choose a group of players to stick with and pay. Or your organization will become what the Oakland Athletics have become, a perennial losing team that is once again at the bottom of the league. How is that better than the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Kansas City Royals, two other habitually losing teams? But lets make a movie about Scott Hatteberg; the average Joe of baseball players. And lets again remember, the A's at their best won NOTHING!
Using sabermetric stats is a good resource to build a winning baseball team. The A's are proving that you cannot win on JUST that alone. Money has to be spent in some way, shape or form.
RSS Feed
