Money Ball

#4
#4
He looks strange without all that extra weight.

Fat guy = funny. Skinny guy who used to be fat = not funny. I can cite a few examples if needed.
 
#5
#5
trevols81 said:
He looks strange without all that extra weight.

Fat guy = funny. Skinny guy who used to be fat = not funny. I can cite a few examples if needed.
Click to expand...

Being fat isn't what made him funny, IMO. He's not willing to make jokes about it. He never played the fat card.
 
#7
#7
trevols81 said:
Fat Drew Carey = kind of funny.
Skinny Price is Right Drew Carey = not funny at all.
Click to expand...

Drew Carey is still funny, IMO. Price is Right isn't exactly the environment to make people fall off the couch laughing.

You have a point with Newman, though.
 
#8
#8
nbakerld said:
Drew Carey is still funny, IMO. Price is Right isn't exactly the environment to make people fall off the couch laughing.

You have a point with Newman, though.
Click to expand...

Outside of Superbad, Knocked Up, and Accepted I don't think I've seen him in anything else. He was pretty funny in those movies, though.

He does have a new animated show coming out soon on fox called Allen Gregory.
 
#9
#9
His small role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall was hilarious. They came up with a spinoff in Get Him to the Greek that I was pretty sure was gonna bomb, and it was hilarious.
 
#10
#10
nbakerld said:
His small role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall was hilarious. They came up with a spinoff in Get Him to the Greek that I was pretty sure was gonna bomb, and it was hilarious.
Click to expand...

I've never seen either of them. Been wanting to see forgetting Sarah Marshall but Russell Brand makes my skin crawl.
 
#13
#13
the theory behind Moneyball has proven to be the biggest scam in the world. Beane got lucky and found the success that every successful team gets. A handful of great hitters, good role players and astounding pitching. Once he lost the hitting, it was all over and the A's have stunk it up ever since. Now they just serve as a AAAA team for pitching. I sort of hope the movie points that out now that it's been ten years later. Show how they haven't had hitting since Tejada left and Chavez broke his back for the 19th time.
 
#15
#15
volfanbill said:
the theory behind Moneyball has proven to be the biggest scam in the world. Beane got lucky and found the success that every successful team gets. A handful of great hitters, good role players and astounding pitching. Once he lost the hitting, it was all over and the A's have stunk it up ever since. Now they just serve as a AAAA team for pitching. I sort of hope the movie points that out now that it's been ten years later. Show how they haven't had hitting since Tejada left and Chavez broke his back for the 19th time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I'll still see it. Not every day there is a move about a MLB front office, lol.
 
#16
#16
volfanbill said:
the theory behind Moneyball has proven to be the biggest scam in the world. Beane got lucky and found the success that every successful team gets. A handful of great hitters, good role players and astounding pitching. Once he lost the hitting, it was all over and the A's have stunk it up ever since. Now they just serve as a AAAA team for pitching. I sort of hope the movie points that out now that it's been ten years later. Show how they haven't had hitting since Tejada left and Chavez broke his back for the 19th time.
Click to expand...

That's what you think. The main component of Beane's model was getting undervalued OBP. For 100 years of baseball history, salaries were not correlated with OBP. For the last 8 years, contracts have reflected a high correlation between salary and OBP.

In other words, the reason Beane doesn't have an advantage anymore is that everyone copied him.
 
#17
#17
#1ArencibiaFan said:
Agreed. But I'll still see it. Not every day there is a move about a MLB front office, lol.
Click to expand...

oh I'm still going to watch it. Between it being about baseball, my A's specifically and the admin side of sports, which I've spent a great amount of time in, I'm looking forward to it.
 
#18
#18
Having 3 of the best pitchers in the AL at the time didn't hurt him either
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
VOLNBAMA said:
Having 3 of the best pitchers in the AL at the time didn't hurt him either
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think their pitching staff is a bit overrated. They went elsewhere and didn't do much. They only had 3 guys pitching like aces in 2 years of the 5 year run, IMO.
 
#20
#20
nbakerld said:
I think their pitching staff is a bit overrated. They went elsewhere and didn't do much. They only had 3 guys pitching like aces in 2 years of the 5 year run, IMO.
Click to expand...

it has nothing to do with what the pitchers did after they left. Mulder, Hudson and Zito were all lights out dominant as the Big Three. The success of the A's had just as much to do with them as it did anybody else.
 
#21
#21
volfanbill said:
it has nothing to do with what the pitchers did after they left. Mulder, Hudson and Zito were all lights out dominant as the Big Three. The success of the A's had just as much to do with them as it did anybody else.
Click to expand...

They were great....for 3 years. The A's run was 6 years, and the pitching staff was great for 3 of it. For the other 3 years where they won a lot of games, the pitching staff was very mundane. In 2004 they only had 1 starter below a 3.9 ERA. In 2000, only 1 starter below 4.1 ERA. In 1999, only 1 starter below 4.3 ERA.

They were a big part of the A's success. Either way, Beane uses metrics for fielding, base-running, and pitching that the rest of the league may be copying as well.
 
#22
#22
for OBP. Last year San Fran ranked 19th in all of MLB in OBP. The previous year, the Yankees were first. In '08, the Phillies were 16th. In '07, Boston was 2nd. In '06, the Cardinals were 14th. That pretty much proves there's nowhere near as much correlation between having a high OBP and being a winning ballclub. It's nice, but there's far too many other factors, like really good starting pitching and a really good bullpen.
 
#23
#23
and ironically in 1999 and 2004 they didn't even the division. Hmmm, interesting how that works out.
 
#24
#24
volfanbill said:
for OBP. Last year San Fran ranked 19th in all of MLB in OBP. The previous year, the Yankees were first. In '08, the Phillies were 16th. In '07, Boston was 2nd. In '06, the Cardinals were 14th. That pretty much proves there's nowhere near as much correlation between having a high OBP and being a winning ballclub. It's nice, but there's far too many other factors, like really good starting pitching and a really good bullpen.
Click to expand...

That statement pretty much proves you know nothing about statistics. No offense.

Pitching definitely factors. Nobody said it didn't. All I'm saying is that Beane's offense carried them when their pitching was mundane, and the A's were elite when they had great pitching.
 
#25
#25
Using WS winners an argument for OBP isn't very good as MLB playoffs are a crap shoot of who gets hot at the right time. Anyone really believe the Giants were the best overall team last year?

Top OBP

2010:
Yankees
Twins
Red Sox
Braves
Reds
Rangers

2009:
Yankees
Rays
Phillies
Angels

There's actually a pretty good correlation between OBP and the top teams.

Sure Beane and his team found out the OBP was important, but others have been much more successful at implementing and using sabermetrics.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top