Moneyball... Your opinions on it.

[tri_vol]

Originally Posted by volfanbill

Miguel Tejada batting .308 with 34 jacks and 131 RBIs helped a lot too. So did Chavvy's 34 jacks and 100+ RBIs. You can't underestimate the offense and defense those two contributed. Chavvy had a .961 fielding percentage and Miggy was .975. Factor in how much ground each could cover (especially Chavvy making all those plays in the extra large foul territory down the 3rd base line) and you have a recipe for success. Get a handful of players good at getting on base and let the pitching staff handle the rest.

Nerd alert.




Just messin with ya.

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

The pitching staff was the heart and soul of that team.

wrong. Chavvy and Tejada were. Had Chavvy not been destroyed by his back, he would be one of the most revered Oakland A's of all time. Up there with Rickey, Eckersley, Vida Blue, Rollie Fingers and Catfish. Tejada was loved by all and the fans were more upset about losing him than Giambi, Damon or any of the big 3. Oakland still finished 4th in pitching in the AL in 2005 and 2006 without Hudson or Mulder. With the departure of Zito after '06, they were still 6th in the AL.

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by tri_vol

Nerd alert.




Just messin with ya.

Just a big Oakland A's fan. Okay, and a nerd. I freely admit it. The Army even pays me to be one.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by volfanbill

wrong. Chavvy and Tejada were. Had Chavvy not been destroyed by his back, he would be one of the most revered Oakland A's of all time. Up there with Rickey, Eckersley, Vida Blue, Rollie Fingers and Catfish. Tejada was loved by all and the fans were more upset about losing him than Giambi, Damon or any of the big 3. Oakland still finished 4th in the AL in 2005 and 2006 without Hudson or Mulder. With the departure of Zito after '06, they were still 6th in the AL.

You are telling me you take away the big three and that team is successful?

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

You are telling me you take away the big three and that team is successful?

no. I'm telling you they weren't the heart and soul and they were rather easily replaced. Duke, Harden, Dan Haren, Barry Zito and Joe Blanton made a great rotation for the a's. The team completely jumped on the backs of Miggy and Chavez though, not the Big 3. Quit rearranging the argument. You sound like nbaker. The 'pen wasn't too shabby either.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by volfanbill

no. I'm telling you they weren't the heart and soul. The team completely jumped on the backs of Miggy and Chavez though, not the Big 3. Quit rearranging the argument. You sound like nbaker.

Negative ghostrider.............might want to look at the kettle.

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volfanbill

you've proven you're lack of understanding for every sport, but baseball especially. At certain positions you are kind of right, but SS, 2B and 3B Fielding % is a pretty impressive stat when comped with the range the player has. I mentioned that, but I'm sure you didn't notice. You always miss the finer details.

Yeah, you covered that. But if a player with the range to dive for balls others can't get to isn't penalized with errors when missing, then FLD % + range still doesn't accurately capture fielding prowess.

No need to be so insulting.

It's not about understanding baseball, it's about logic.

Player A (3B): .985 FLD %
Player B (3B): .950 FLD %

Player A adequately handles everything that is hit to him, but is he the better fielder? We have no idea, whatsoever, even if he has incredible range.

Example:

Say over a 3 year period 1500 balls are hit towards 3B, in the cases of both players. Player A has a much better glove, but is not nearly as good at predicting where the ball will be hit:

Player A: Has 1000 chances, and 985 putouts and assists.
Player B: Has 1200 chances, and 1140 putouts and assists.

You want Player B on your team.

[OrangeEmpire]

Teams obviously trade for fielding % at the trade dead line.

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by nbakerld

Yeah, you covered that. But if a player with the range to dive for balls others can't get to isn't penalized with errors when missing, then FLD % + range still doesn't accurately capture fielding prowess.

No need to be so insulting.

It's not about understanding baseball, it's about logic.

Player A (3B): .985 FLD %
Player B (3B): .950 FLD %

Player A adequately handles everything that is hit to him, but is he the better fielder? We have no idea, whatsoever, even if he has incredible range.

Example:

Say over a 3 year period 1500 balls are hit towards 3B, in the cases of both players. Player A has a much better glove, but is not nearly as good at predicting where the ball will be hit:

Player A: Has 1000 chances, and 985 putouts and assists.
Player B: Has 1200 chances, and 1140 putouts and assists.

You want Player B on your team.

which is why I clearly covered that both Chavez and Miggy had great range. Especially Chavez. Without the ability to know where the ball is going, your range is greatly diminished. It is about knowing baseball, not logic. Using logic is why Beane's sabermetric system hasn't worked since he had 2-3 pure power hitters in the lineup to go with his always solid pitching. Again, thanks for playing for no reason. Now crawl back to making bad arguments in the NBA thread.

[OrangeEmpire]

Frackin Tim Kirkjian Ray Knight clone

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

Teams obviously trade for fielding % at the trade dead line.

No one puts defensive liabilities up the middle of the field with success no matter what they do at the plate. Having a great defensive third baseman that hits for power is a huge bonus for most teams.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by volfanbill

No one puts defensive liabilities up the middle of the field with success no matter what they do at the plate. Having a great defensive third baseman that hits for power is a huge bonus for most teams.

Absolutely, who needs pitching

[OrangeEmpire]

Love to read your thoughts on the double switch

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

Absolutely, who needs pitching

OE I really wish you could read. I've never said that the Big Three weren't an important part. In fact, them being an important part was one of the first things I mentioned when I posted in this thread. But they weren't bigger than the impact that Chavvy and Tejada brought to the offense and defense. The team rolled through Chavez and Tejada, not the big 3. As I said, the big three have been replaced at least 3 times now by solid young pitchers that are very, very good. Beane has never been able to replace the offensive production he lost when he couldn't afford power hitters or find them via the draft like Alderson did with Giambi, Chavez and Tejada.

But since you have no real data or input to bring to the discussion, continue on as if I said good pitching was worthless. It suits you.

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volfanbill

which is why I clearly covered that both Chavez and Miggy had great range. Especially Chavez. Without the ability to know where the ball is going, your range is greatly diminished. It is about knowing baseball, not logic. Using logic is why Beane's sabermetric system hasn't worked since he had 2-3 pure power hitters in the lineup to go with his always solid pitching. Again, thanks for playing for no reason. Now crawl back to making bad arguments in the NBA thread.

But that doesn't mean anything. I CLEARLY acknowledged that you mentioned range. What aren't you understanding? You can't know how good a fielder is until you can account for their ability to predict where the ball is going to be hit.

And the deflection* indicates you know your case is weak. I don't know why in the **** you are bringing up power hitters, sabermetrics, or anything else. We are talking about FLD %.

*as well as the insults