Can We Finally Put The Moneyball Myth To Rest?

[hatvol96]

Three years of a past-his-prime Frank Robinson.

Three years where he hit 32, 25, and 28 home runs.

 

[hatvol96]

Cuellar was ineffective after 1974, McNally was gone after 1974, and Palmer after 1978 (save for his one-year revival in 1982). From 1975-1982, the Orioles were 720-511 (.585; 95-67 over 162 games), and 586-374 from 1969-1974 (.610; 99-63 over 162 games). Don't forget that this was also when the Yankees went from also-ran to back to the top of the league (503-461, .522, 85-77 over 162 from 1969-74; 710-525, .575, 93-69 over 162 from 1975-82).

Baltimore didn't replace Cuellar and McNally with All-Stars either. Their 1975 rotation saw McNally replaced with Mike Torrez for one year, and Ross Grimsley bringing up the rear. Wayne Garland, Rudy May, and Ken Holtzman in 1976, and the list goes on. The bullpen had an inordinate number of wins every year that Weaver was there, but there weren't really any top-level relievers during that whole time span either.

As I said before, I'm of the opinion that a manager generally has very little impact on the outcomes of games. But when you look at both who and what Weaver had in Baltimore, particularly post-1974, and compare it to the results, it's amazing. It wasn't one fluke year, it was being in contention time and time and time again.





Three years of a past-his-prime Frank Robinson, and seven years of a guy who was 32 when Weaver got him on a full-time basis.

Yeah, Weaver had such awful pitching post '74. It's not like Mike Flanagan and Steve Stone won Cy Youngs. Dennis Martinez was just awful. There's no way Scott McGregor averaged 15 wins a season over a five year period.

 

[Ohio Vol]

Yeah, Weaver had such awful pitching post '74. It's not like Mike Flanagan and Steve Stone won Cy Youngs. Dennis Martinez was just awful. There's no way Scott McGregor averaged 15 wins a season over a five year period.

Through 1982, Mike Flanagan was 100-70. After that, he was 67-73 with all of his core numbers worse than before.

Scott McGregor's best years were under Weaver (78-50 through 1982, 60-58 after).

Steve Stone was 67-72 outside of Baltimore, 40-21 with in his three years.

El Presidente wasn't much of anything in Baltimore; it wasn't until he got to Montreal that he developed into an excellent pitcher. His years in Cleveland at the end of his career were better than what he had in Baltimore.

If you want to go back further, McNally and Cuellar blossomed into excellent pitchers under Weaver. Palmer was about the only one who would have been fine even if Joe Altobelli were there during his career.

 

[Vercingetorix]

It took Bill James 30 years to get an interview because the ability to state the obvious, while cloaking it as revolutionary, isn't that valuable. "Guys who get on base a great deal while putting up huge extra base hit numbers are valuable." Groundbreaking.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Thirty years ago almost nobody paid attention to "getting on base" as something different from just a straight batting average. Nobody really seemed to notice that some guys would consistently draw 100 walks a year and others would only draw 20, and if the number of walks a player drew ever came up, it was usually in the context of whether he needed to be more aggressive. Nobody paid attention to the value that the walks themselves represented. I don't think you can credit any one guy for the change, whether it's Bill James or Earl Weaver or whoever, but the simple fact that today's winning teams evaluate players and build their lineups using OBP instead of just a batting average means that a significant change has occurred. Of course it's obvious stuff now, but it wasn't in the 70s.

 

[hatvol96]

Of course it's obvious stuff now, but it wasn't in the 70s.

Only to the casual slobs in the stands. How many times did Joe Morgan hit .300? Yet, Bob Howsam busted up a team that steamrolled the National League in 1970 to get him. You really think people who actually understood the game didn't realize Ted Williams was getting on base almost half the time? Please.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[hatvol96]

Thirty years ago almost nobody paid attention to "getting on base" as something different from just a straight batting average. Nobody really seemed to notice that some guys would consistently draw 100 walks a year and others would only draw 20, and if the number of walks a player drew ever came up, it was usually in the context of whether he needed to be more aggressive. Nobody paid attention to the value that the walks themselves represented. I don't think you can credit any one guy for the change, whether it's Bill James or Earl Weaver or whoever, but the simple fact that today's winning teams evaluate players and build their lineups using OBP instead of just a batting average means that a significant change has occurred. Of course it's obvious stuff now, but it wasn't in the 70s.

Look at the dominant teams in baseball history. Then measure them against their contemporaries by the alleged "secret" metrics self proclaimed geniuses like Weaver and James used. Guess what? Those teams had great on base and slugging numbers. I guess that was just by happenstance. We all know that baseball people are all retards who must be shown the light by visionaries like James, Beane, and Marshall.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Vercingetorix]

The test cases for OBP aren't Olympians like Morgan and Ted Williams; the difference is in how teams regard marginal guys. Look at how teams used to pick a leadoff hitter -- they used to just get a fast guy with an okay batting average and stick him at the top of the order so he could steal bases. Nowadays every team looks at the same guy and says, "Whoa, guy's got an OBP of .300 up there; he's killing us," and they try somebody else. Teams are just smarter now. Maybe it was stathead-type Theo Epstein winning two titles in Boston; maybe everybody sort of collectively finally realized that the 100 walks Rickey Henderson drew every year were more valuable than the bases he stole. Whatever happened, teams are building their lineups differently. Just look at this year's Braves -- they're in first place and near the top of the league in runs scored with a lineup full of mostly anonymous guys with no power, mostly because they're a high-OBP team in the AL mode. This Braves team never would have been put together a few years ago.

 

[whocaresgobobcats]

I think the biggest developments from James' research isn't about OBP or OPS, but stuff like RC, WAR and VORP. It's all about finding which players have the most value, especially over their replacements.

 

[hatvol96]

Look at how teams used to pick a leadoff hitter -- they used to just get a fast guy with an okay batting average and stick him at the top of the order so he could steal bases.

That explains Pete Rose hitting leadoff for most of his prime years. What a burner. Funny that the really good teams of their eras didn't fall into the fallacies you pretend everyone bought into.

 

[Ohio Vol]

Only to the casual slobs in the stands. How many times did Joe Morgan hit .300? Yet, Bob Howsam busted up a team that steamrolled the National League in 1970 to get him. You really think people who actually understood the game didn't realize Ted Williams was getting on base almost half the time? Please.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Morgan was acquired after the 1971 season, when:
- It was obvious that Tommy Helms, besides not being able to hit, had an inflated value due to his defensive prowess while costing the team a ton at the plate.
- Lee May continued swinging at everything that moved
- Jimmy Stewart proved that he couldn't be an everyday position player

Making the move to get Morgan made sense for plenty of reasons, namely:
- It allowed the leadfooted Tony Perez to take over at first for May
- It allowed Morgan to replace Helms
- It allowed Denis Menke, also part of the deal, to replace Perez at third
- It allowed Cesar Geronimo to fight for a starting spot, which he won
- It brought in Jack Billingham to shore up the rotation
- It brought in Ed Armbrister to see if he could establish himself (which he did not)

Look at the dominant teams in baseball history. Then measure them against their contemporaries by the alleged "secret" metrics self proclaimed geniuses like Weaver and James used. Guess what? Those teams had great on base and slugging numbers. I guess that was just by happenstance. We all know that baseball people are all retards who must be shown the light by visionaries like James, Beane, and Marshall.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

If everyone in baseball was aware of the importance of OBP compared to batting average, they sure had a funny way of expressing it. I remember teams not seeming to care if Darrell Evans or Mickey Tettleton walked away, or if Brian Giles was moved for a washed-up Mexican League reliever. I remember the day after Craig Biggio got hit #3,000; the discussion on national radio was "Is it safe to say that 3,000 hits should no longer warrant HOF induction?"

 

[hatvol96]

If everyone in baseball was aware of the importance of OBP compared to batting average, they sure had a funny way of expressing it. I remember teams not seeming to care if Darrell Evans or Mickey Tettleton walked away, or if Brian Giles was moved for a washed-up Mexican League reliever. I remember the day after Craig Biggio got hit #3,000; the discussion on national radio was "Is it safe to say that 3,000 hits should no longer warrant HOF induction?"

I'm sure it had nothing to do with Evans and Tettleton being awful defenders and lead footed basepath cloggers. Look at all the benefits the teams that had those guys reaped. Oh, wait. They were generally on mediocre teams their whole careers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Ohio Vol]

I'm sure it had nothing to do with Evans and Tettleton being awful defenders and lead footed basepath cloggers. Look at all the benefits the teams that had those guys reaped. Oh, wait. They were generally on mediocre teams their whole careers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Tettleton was brutal behind the plate, Evans was a pretty good defensive third baseman.

At the plate, Tettleton was very good, Evans was excellent. What you forget is that it's impossible to be a "basepath clogger" if you can't first get on base. I'd rather have one of those two or someone like Adam Dunn taking a walk and representing a possible run than grounding out and representing nothing except...an out. Evans led the American League in home runs as a 38-year-old in an average hitters' park and played extremely well in Detroit.

And it's not like you can blame a player for being a part of a horrible team. Evans was on the Braves teams that had to go against vastly superior Dodgers and Reds teams year in and year out, then went to the Giants, who started both Enos Cabell and Johnnie (Disaster) LeMaster. Every year, Evans was among the two or three best hitters on his team.

I once played in a hockey game where a teammate came into the locker room before the game and said, "Guys, I feel great. I've got a hat trick in me today." He finished with 2 goals and 3 assists, and we lost 6-5. Did we lose because he didn't get his third goal, which would have tied it? Or did we lose because no one on the second, third, or fourth lines registered a point?

 

[hatvol96]

Tettleton was brutal behind the plate, Evans was a pretty good defensive third baseman.

At the plate, Tettleton was very good, Evans was excellent. What you forget is that it's impossible to be a "basepath clogger" if you can't first get on base. I'd rather have one of those two or someone like Adam Dunn taking a walk and representing a possible run than grounding out and representing nothing except...an out. Evans led the American League in home runs as a 38-year-old in an average hitters' park and played extremely well in Detroit.

And it's not like you can blame a player for being a part of a horrible team. Evans was on the Braves teams that had to go against vastly superior Dodgers and Reds teams year in and year out, then went to the Giants, who started both Enos Cabell and Johnnie (Disaster) LeMaster. Every year, Evans was among the two or three best hitters on his team.

I once played in a hockey game where a teammate came into the locker room before the game and said, "Guys, I feel great. I've got a hat trick in me today." He finished with 2 goals and 3 assists, and we lost 6-5. Did we lose because he didn't get his third goal, which would have tied it? Or did we lose because no one on the second, third, or fourth lines registered a point?

Yeah, look at all the winning teams Adam Dumb has played for. Losers lose. It's what they do. All the pretty numbers in the world don't change the fact they are failures.

 

[Ohio Vol]

Yeah, look at all the winning teams Adam Dumb has played for. Losers lose. It's what they do. All the pretty numbers in the world don't change the fact they are failures.

Maybe I define "loser" a little bit differently than you do, but I'd argue that a player whose screwball antics prevent a team from winning is infinitely more of a loser than a player who simply has the misfortune of being on unsuccessful teams.

Dan Marino wasn't a loser, Terrell Owens is. Barry Sanders wasn't, Tiki Barber was. Mike Sweeney and Todd Helton aren't, Richie/Dick Allen was.

A player who plays at an extremely high level and whose shot at team success is undone by the ineptitude of others around him can't honestly be called "a loser". A few years back, I had the two best linemen I've ever coached, and yet the offense did nothing because I also had the two worst I've ever coached (we had the worst quarterback I've been around as well). I can't say that the good ones were losers, but I'd say that the quarterback, easily the most destructive player I've been around from a team standpoint, sure was.

 

[Vercingetorix]

That explains Pete Rose hitting leadoff for most of his prime years. What a burner. Funny that the really good teams of their eras didn't fall into the fallacies you pretend everyone bought into.

Again, you're using a HOF-caliber player as your refutation of the modern emphasis on OBP. Rose led off because he hit .320 every year; nobody needed to pay attention to walks to know that Rose was going to get on base all the time. Most teams didn't have a guy like that, so they just stuck a fast guy with a decent-ish batting average up there. It wasn't until teams started paying more attention to OBP that most of them realized it was insanity to use a guy like Mariano Duncan at the top of the order, which several good teams at the time did.

I can't really tell whether you're arguing that A) teams have always paid attention to walks drawn and OBP, and there's been no change in the way that baseball teams conduct their business in recent years, or just that B) Billy Beane and Bill James are morons.