2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[a700hitter]

How is the use of the term "moneyball" not relevant when it was central to the point he made in his original post? Yes, he has subsequently modified his position to make the term "moneyball" irrelevant. He had to, his original point fell flat on its face through misuse of the term.

 

Here's the quote...

 

 

 

He was adding on to a700's point that the Cubs will be a weaker team next year by further stating that he forecasts this weakness into subsequent years because of "moneyball". His misuse of the term is very relevant to the discussion he initiated (how the Cubs rebuilding process will go).

 

As far as how good (well actually, how bad) the Cubs will be next year, what's so interesting about that? They are clearly just now starting a rebuilding process. They should be bad. It's like discussing the finer points of how wet water is.

But it is extremely interesting whether he used the term MoneyBall correctly? Here was the focus of his post as I read it:

 

The true is that today I see this Cubs weaker in order to face next season.

 

Why is it interesting? Because Theo was the Sox GM. He went to the Cubs who stunk in 2011 and that had very little talent. A lot of people thought that the Cubs had nowhere to go but up. I am finding it interesting that they could be heading toward a worse season in 2012, but that's just me. You find other things interesting and good for you.

[User Name]

I thought this was in line with what you wanted to see this year: 'rebuilding' by hanging onto money and prospects since we're not going anywhere anyway.

 

You'd think that would make the incessant bitching stop eh?

[FredLynn]

I thought this was in line with what you wanted to see this year: 'rebuilding' by hanging onto money and prospects since we're not going anywhere anyway.

 

I haven't changed my mind "Bellhorn" <_>

This SHOULD be a rebuilding year. My comments were aimed at the folks here who actually believe that we have a decent shot at making a run at a ring this year. I think thats deluded thinking during a rebuilding year, but thats what these boards are for: different opinions. I believe that we ought to keep below the tax limit and not waste a single prospect this year.

[a700hitter]

News Flash:

Theo Epstein Abandons MoneyBall Philosophy

per certain TalkSox Members.

 

:lol:

[Elktonnick]

You'd think that would make the incessant bitching stop eh?

 

The incessant bitching will only stop come Openning Day. Then it will be intermittent unless there is a protracted losing streak.

[ORS]

Really? 50 something going on 12.

 

Or, are age jokes only okay when you are calling the female members menopausal?

[User Name]

The incessant bitching will only stop come Openning Day. Then it will be intermittent unless there is a protracted losing streak.

 

Haha fair enough.

[a700hitter]

Really? 50 something going on 12.

 

Or, are age jokes only okay when you are calling the female members menopausal?

I don't mind if someone mistakes me for being younger, even if it is due to my immaturity. At least I like to have a laugh when I am posting in this space, unlike others who are always out to prove someone wrong. That's immature and not fun.

 

BTW: Were my menopausal remarks offensive to you? I'm not surprised.

[ORS]

I don't mind if someone mistakes me for being younger, even if it is due to my immaturity. At least I like to have a laugh when I am posting in this space, unlike others who are always out to prove someone wrong. That's immature and not fun.

 

BTW: Were my menopausal remarks offensive to you? I'm not surprised.

No, not offensive to me at all. I just find the double standard you so regularly apply here to be funny. See, I too can have a laugh here, only it's mostly at you and not with you.

[a700hitter]

No' date=' not offensive to me at all. I just find the double standard you so regularly apply here to be funny. See, I too can have a laugh here, only it's mostly at you and not with you.[/quote']Glad you are laughing. I'll see if I can come up with some triple standards to make you laugh even harder.

[iortiz]

You are arguing the meaning of the term "Moneyball" which is not really relevant to iortiz's post. Whether Theo is employing a Moneyball philosophy with the Cubs or not' date=' it looks pretty likely that the Cubs will be playing Shitball on the field next season.[/quote']

 

Yup.

 

If they read carefully the discussion about the Cubs, it starts when you posted "Cubs To Sign Paul Maholm". I don't like Maholm. I don't like how the Cubs are going to face next season. That is the substance of my point and the whole thing. If they disagree or want to believe other thing, is up to them.

[User Name]

You said they were using a Moneyball approach to rebuilding. That was refuted, because it's incorrect, and the point was made that a team in true rebuilding mode shouldn't be expected to contend, because "Rebuilding" is blowing up the team and starting from scratch, which is what the Cubs are doing. The signing of a guy like Maholm happens when a rebuilding team needs to add cheap players in order to fill out the roster while moving some other assets.

[iortiz]

a700 to the rescue again. He specifically mentioned moneyball and I responded that it probably doesnt apply. It has nothing to do with you. IOrtiz is a big boy, he can (and does) state his view just fine and can handle a back and forth with me about his use of the term.

 

People use moneyball as a catchall phrase to capture moves that certain baseball execs do, and it is bad form because it often misses the point of the approach. I don't expect you to care or find it relevant. I wasn't talking to you in the first place.

 

As I said, It wasn't the center of the discussion, but Light me E1, what is the moneyball approach? I want to learn.

[iortiz]

You said they were using a Moneyball approach to rebuilding. That was refuted' date=' because it's incorrect, and the point was made that a team in true rebuilding mode shouldn't be expected to contend, because "Rebuilding" is blowing up the team and starting from scratch, which is what the Cubs are doing. The signing of a guy like Maholm happens when a rebuilding team needs to add cheap players in order to fill out the roster while moving some other assets.[/quote']

 

Can you rebuild a team with the moneyball approach or not?

[a700hitter]

Can you rebuild a team with the moneyball approach or not?

It seems to me that the Moneyball philosophy if followed should apply to acquisitions whether or not a team is rebuilding. I am curious to hear why Theo (a self professed Moneyballer) would not be following a moneyball philosophy in rebuilding the team. I am going to get my notepad.

[iortiz]

It seems to me that the Moneyball philosophy if followed should apply to acquisitions whether or not a team is rebuilding. I am curious to hear why Theo (a self professed Moneyballer) would not be following a moneyball philosophy in rebuilding the team. I am going to get my notepad.

 

Beyond the Cubs will or won't suck next season (which was the center of the discussion), when I see guys like Paul Maholm, David de Jesus and some prospects like Rizzo coming to a big market team and not big moves yet, seems like they are applying some concepts of the moneyball philosophy in order to rebuild their team.

 

On the other hand, out there are plenty of examples of Big Market professional sport teams that rebuild their teams with big acquisitions (as base/core), young talent and depth and are set very quickly in order to compete in the short-term (next season). IMO This is not the Cub case, thus far. We'll see.

[ORS]

Yup.

 

If they read carefully the discussion about the Cubs, it starts when you posted "Cubs To Sign Paul Maholm". I don't like Maholm. I don't like how the Cubs are going to face next season. That is the substance of my point and the whole thing. If they disagree or want to believe other thing, is up to them.

Careful reading shows that you expanded upon that point into the realm of rebuilding strategy. This is a side point that you initiated and others responded to. Your use of the term "moneyball" is relevant in this discussion....that you initiated.

 

In simplest terms, the message of the book Moneyball was about finding undervalued sources of production in baseball. During the era of time that the book covered, the modern statistical movement for baseball (sabermetrics) was not as pervaisive throughout the game as it is now. Using a saber approach to player evaluations, Beane was able to identify players with skillsets that were undervalued and was able to make the Athletics competitive despite having a smaller budget than most teams. The concept is still alive, as it should be, because every team, regardless of their budgets, should look for ways to identify undervalued production (or even potential). However, the benefit is harder to find as more teams now see the value of modernized statistical measures.

[ORS]

It seems to me that the Moneyball philosophy if followed should apply to acquisitions whether or not a team is rebuilding. I am curious to hear why Theo (a self professed Moneyballer) would not be following a moneyball philosophy in rebuilding the team. I am going to get my notepad.

I don't recall anyone stating that "moneyball" was going to be ignored, only that the OP that brought it into the discussion did not use it in the correct context.

[example1]

Beyond the Cubs will or won't suck next season (which was the center of the discussion)' date=' when I see guys like Paul Maholm, David de Jesus and some prospects like Rizzo coming to a big market team and not big moves yet, seems like they are applying some concepts of the moneyball philosophy in order to rebuild their team. [/quote']

 

I'm not sure if you have read the book or not. Basically, I think it was called "moneyball" because it was all about Beane trying to maxamize limited money by focusing on undervalued talent (skills that were undervalued monetarily by other teams) in order to replenish a team that had recently lost a lot of good (by the traditional sense of measuring) players.

 

OBP was the statistic that got the most splash, because at the time teams were leaving guys with relatively good OBPs available on the market for little to no cost, while paying too much for guys who had, maybe, high averages or low averages and good power. Beane exploited this circumstance and was able to get more wins (value) from the players he acquired than he should have been able to, given his financial limitations.

 

OBP was quickly (or simultaneously) adopted by other teams and guys with high OBP were pretty quickly swallowed up, their market became higher and they were no longer "undervalued assets".

 

Some people might use the word "moneyball" to mean getting players with high OBP over other statistics. I think the term is much more about studying the trends in the game currently by combining on-field production with costs and financial trends in the league, to spot factors that contribute to winning which are currently being undervalued by a lot of other teams--to the degree that players who have those skills are readily available.

 

Billy Beane had to use a "moneyball" approach because his team was short on cash. The Red Sox don't have to use that approach because they have a ton of money. However, to maxamize the efficiency of that money, they try to apply the same philosophy to supplement the big expendatures with cheaper talent that might be worth more than their cost according to some trait that might not be accurately reflected in current prices.

 

On the other hand, out there are plenty of examples of Big Market professional sport teams that rebuild their teams with big acquisitions (as base/core), young talent and depth and are set very quickly in order to compete in the short-term (next season). IMO This is not the Cub case, thus far. We'll see.

 

I think the Cubs are in rebuild mode. They will get rid of all their bad players and bad contracts and eventually make a huge splash or two to add the players who can put them over the top.

 

A central tennant to any moneyball (or even intelligent) approach to building a team is to have a productive farm system. Draft picks were, for many years, an undervalued asset. The fact that the Sox could let a FA go, sign a comparable FA, and get a supplemental 1st round draft pick was something the Sox exploited over and over.

[a700hitter]

I don't recall anyone stating that "moneyball" was going to be ignored' date=' only that the OP that brought it into the discussion did not use it in the correct context.[/quote']But Theo is a Moneyballer and it sure looks the Cubs are going to suck worse in 2012 than 2011 after a bunch of moves by Theo. It seems like it was a pointless argument over semantics.

[iortiz]

Careful reading shows that you expanded upon that point into the realm of rebuilding strategy. This is a side point that you initiated and others responded to. Your use of the term "moneyball" is relevant in this discussion....that you initiated.

 

In simplest terms, the message of the book Moneyball was about finding undervalued sources of production in baseball. During the era of time that the book covered, the modern statistical movement for baseball (sabermetrics) was not as pervaisive throughout the game as it is now. Using a saber approach to player evaluations, Beane was able to identify players with skillsets that were undervalued and was able to make the Athletics competitive despite having a smaller budget than most teams. The concept is still alive, as it should be, because every team, regardless of their budgets, should look for ways to identify undervalued production (or even potential). However, the benefit is harder to find as more teams now see the value of modernized statistical measures.

 

I see your point ORS. Still the substance of the discussion wasn't the moneyball thing. Yes, I mentioned it but E1 was who take it as the main issue which i already made clear that it wasn't. I think we can move on. No big deal.

 

On the other hand and now that we are discussing about the moneyball thing... In your opinion, is Theo a moneyballer? if yes, is he going to change his philosophy in order to rebuild the cubs? can you use moneyball approach in order to rebuild a team? is Theo using moneyball concepts in order to rebuild the cubs at some positions, THUS FAR?

[iortiz]

I'm not sure if you have read the book or not. Basically, I think it was called "moneyball" because it was all about Beane trying to maxamize limited money by focusing on undervalued talent (skills that were undervalued monetarily by other teams) in order to replenish a team that had recently lost a lot of good (by the traditional sense of measuring) players.

 

OBP was the statistic that got the most splash, because at the time teams were leaving guys with relatively good OBPs available on the market for little to no cost, while paying too much for guys who had, maybe, high averages or low averages and good power. Beane exploited this circumstance and was able to get more wins (value) from the players he acquired than he should have been able to, given his financial limitations.

 

OBP was quickly (or simultaneously) adopted by other teams and guys with high OBP were pretty quickly swallowed up, their market became higher and they were no longer "undervalued assets".

 

Some people might use the word "moneyball" to mean getting players with high OBP over other statistics. I think the term is much more about studying the trends in the game currently by combining on-field production with costs and financial trends in the league, to spot factors that contribute to winning which are currently being undervalued by a lot of other teams--to the degree that players who have those skills are readily available.

 

Billy Beane had to use a "moneyball" approach because his team was short on cash. The Red Sox don't have to use that approach because they have a ton of money. However, to maxamize the efficiency of that money, they try to apply the same philosophy to supplement the big expendatures with cheaper talent that might be worth more than their cost according to some trait that might not be accurately reflected in current prices.

 

 

 

I think the Cubs are in rebuild mode. They will get rid of all their bad players and bad contracts and eventually make a huge splash or two to add the players who can put them over the top.

 

A central tennant to any moneyball (or even intelligent) approach to building a team is to have a productive farm system. Draft picks were, for many years, an undervalued asset. The fact that the Sox could let a FA go, sign a comparable FA, and get a supplemental 1st round draft pick was something the Sox exploited over and over.

 

Plain and simple E1. Is he using moneyball concepts in order to rebuild his team? Yes or no. To me seems so. Are they going to splash in 2013? I have no idea.

 

BL. IMO Cubs will likely suck in 2012 unless Theo make something magical.

[iortiz]

They will get rid of all their bad players and bad contracts and eventually make a huge splash or two to add the players who can put them over the top.

 

I think that Pumpsie thinks that the Red Sox should do the same. We need to clean up the mess that Theo (Some say LL or a mix) left (FA signings). Maybe Theo has learned the lesson reason why he has been very cautious with the Cubs (at FA) or simply Cubs owners didn't want to open their wallet after seeing the mess he left in Boston. We'll never know.

 

We'll see.

[ORS]

But Theo is a Moneyballer and it sure looks the Cubs are going to suck worse in 2012 than 2011 after a bunch of moves by Theo. It seems like it was a pointless argument over semantics.

Not, really, not when you say things like....

 

So and So believes in this

So and So is doing this with his roster

______________ (fill in the blank)

 

While it's not explicitly stated, filling in the blank with a continuation of the logic points to an indictment of either the philosophy or the So and So. That generates discussion, particularly when the philosophy is used in the incorrect context, and/or there are other motivations (like a complete rebuild) to account for the roster moves.

[redsoxrules]

Big mess ?

 

the only big mess is Crawford .

DiceK is gone after this year and Lackey close behind.

no need to blow the team up.

 

I cant wait for the year to get under way and watch this game kick some ass .

[win red sox]

ESPN baseball analyst and former major league general manager Jim Bowden dropped this interesting nugget in his Bowden Bullets piece today:

 

 

The Boston Red Sox appear to be closing in on a short-term deal with right-hander Hiroki Kuroda to add him to a rotation that already has Jon Lester, Josh Beckett, Clay Buchholz and Daniel Bard. This move, along with the trades for relievers Mark Melancon and Andrew Bailey, quickly puts the Red Sox back among the AL’s elite. Kuroda is extremely underrated for the valuable innings he can provide from the back of a rotation.

 

 

The durable Kuroda has made at least 30 starts for the Dodgers in four of the last five seasons, including the last two. He pitched a career-high 202 innings in 2011 with a career-best 3.07 ERA and 161 strikeouts.

 

ESPN Stats & Information guru Jeremy Lundblad also points out that Kuroda is one of only nine starting pitchers with a sub-3.80 ERA in each of the last four seasons. The others are CC Sabathia, Tim Lincecum, Cliff Lee, Felix Hernandez, Wandy Rodriguez, Roy Halladay and Matt Cain. Impressive company to be sure.

 

Kuroda is 36 years old, so a short-term deal might be exactly what the Red Sox are looking for here.

 

Stay tuned

 

 

This is just what the Red Sox need, hopefuly on a 1 year deal w/ a club option. With this addition it marks a signficant improval on last years 90 win team and maybe this also keeps Bard and Aceves in the pen. This would be a significant upgrade to the rotation and bullpen, I'm still hoping they can swing a deal for Harden.

 

Beckett

Lester

Kuroda

Buchholz

Harden

 

Bailey

Bard

Melancon

Aceves

Morales

Jenks/Miller/Bowden/Albers/Doubrant

[ORS]

I see your point ORS. Still the substance of the discussion wasn't the moneyball thing. Yes' date=' I mentioned it but E1 was who take it as the main issue which i already made clear that it wasn't. I think we can move on. No big deal. [/quote']

I've moved on. My response was directed at a comment that suggested it was not relevant at the time E1 responded to you. It was.

 

On the other hand and now that we are discussing about the moneyball thing... In your opinion, is Theo a moneyballer? if yes, is he going to change his philosophy in order to rebuild the cubs? can you use moneyball approach in order to rebuild a team? is Theo using moneyball concepts in order to rebuild the cubs at some positions, THUS FAR?

I think every GM is a "moneyball" GM, when you use the term properly. Remember, the point of the book was about finding undervalued sources of production. Every GM is interested in this. Some use different methods, but I'm confident all do it to some degree. I don't think you can pigeonhole "moneyball" into a niche philosophy.

 

So, yes, he is, and, yes, I think it can be used to rebuild a team. I don't think he will change his philosophy from the success he had in Boston. I think they will focus on player development/drafting, rebuilding the minor league system, finding value on the FA market, and making targeted big contract acquisitions. I don't think those targeted acquisitions are likely in this first year of the process. Right now, the moves they are making look like short-term stop-gaps.

[iortiz]

Big mess ?

 

the only big mess is Crawford .

DiceK is gone after this year and Lackey close behind.

no need to blow the team up.

 

I cant wait for the year to get under way and watch this game kick some ass .

 

Exactly, They need to get rid of all their bad players and bad contracts and eventually make a huge splash or two to add the players who can put them over the top.

 

Jenks, Lackey, D-K and certainly Crawford (I think he will comeback, He better) are clogging your payroll in order to bring the SP and BP arms, aren't they?.

[a700hitter]

Not, really, not when you say things like....

 

So and So believes in this

So and So is doing this with his roster

______________ (fill in the blank)

 

While it's not explicitly stated, filling in the blank with a continuation of the logic points to an indictment of either the philosophy or the So and So. That generates discussion, particularly when the philosophy is used in the incorrect context, and/or there are other motivations (like a complete rebuild) to account for the roster moves.

...and your point is that you like to argue over things that people didn't say by making a continuation of what they meant based on your logical interpretation, and you will continue to argue the so-called implication that was never stated but rather was deduced by your logic despite a clear statement by the other person that they meant something else? That sounds unduly argumentative. That can't be the case. Can it?

[win red sox]

weei just shot down the Kuroda rumor.