Moneyball

So I finished reading Michael Lewis' Moneyball, about the Oakland A's and their GM Billy Beane's unorthodox approach to talent evaluating. It was actually recommended to me in 2009 and since the film is coming out I decided I wanted to read the book first (a rarity). I"m not going to write a review of the book and I'm undecided on whether to see the film or not.

Billy Beane was a former "can't miss" baseball prospect in the late 70's. Suffice to say, his playing career never panned out. He would eventually become a scout for the A's, the last team he played for, and work his way to General Manager of the team ins 1998.

The Oakland A's were a powerhouse in the late 80's & early 90's. They went to 3 consecutive World Series but only managed to win 1. Their Series losses in 1988 & 1990 (Dodgers & Reds) were to teams that didn't have the talent the A's did. After the A's lost to the Blue Jays in the 1992 ALCS, the team pretty much fell apart and they won just 68 games in 1993 and wouldn't post another winning season until 1999. Ownership change after the 1995 season forced the A's into becoming a cost conscious organization. Sandy Alderson, Beane's predecessor, then set out to find talented players that the team could afford by using sabermetrics. Long story short, sabermetrics is a more an empirical approach to evaluating baseball talent. It wasn't new but it was seldom (if at all) used. Using this system of talent evaluation along with some great young pitching & some wheeling & dealing, the A's put together a nice run from 2000-2006 (5 playoff appearances & 4 Division titles).By the way, the A's lost in the ALDS 4 years in a row, including the classic series with the Yankees in 2001 (that's the series that Jeter cut off a bad throw from the outfield by running from his shortstop position to the 1st base line in order to grab the ball & throw out Jeremy Giambi at the plate. Easily the most heads up play, probably ever) that saw the Yankees come back from a 2-0 deficit to win the series 3 games to 2.

I applaud the way Oakland went about putting together a winning team with a small budget. They used a different system that went against the time honored baseball tradition of talent evaluation and did well for themselves (although the team hasn't has a winning season since 2006). There have been a lot of critics of Beane & the A's, more so now with the movie coming out. Michael Lewis went out to acknowledge some of the ridiculous criticism in the post script (I read a Kindle edition). It seems to me that a majority of the criticism came from guys who read excerpts from the book but not the entire book (it's not just politicians who jump to conclusions before getting all the facts...it's all of us).

The book kind of comes across as Beane being the smartest guy in baseball but it never states that he invented sabermetrics as critics suggest.  He also comes across almost as if he's some sort of Jedi using the jedi mind trick to take advantage of weak minded GMs. Beane is also not a big believer in the importance of managers either. Art Howe, the manager of the A's from 1996-2002, comes off as lackey who's there only as a calming influence on the players. Draw your own conclusions but Oakland continued to win under Howe's replacement, Ken Macha, while Howe went on to manage the Mets to a 137-186 record in 2003 & 2004. The Mets had a much larger payroll than the A's and had talent but they were lousy.

I've been listening to  Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on the SIRIUS and he's been going off on it. He correctly points out that a big (perhaps even huge) factor in the A's success from 2000-2006 was because of a great, young pitching staff that consisted of Barry Zito, Mark Mulder & Tim Hudson. You can check out their stats on www.baseball-reference.com. Russo pointed out that 2 of the A's big sluggers, Jason Giambi & Miguel Tejada, during their run were "juicing (as was Russo's favortie SF Giant Barry Bonds)." Russo had on Larry Bowa, a former player & manager who's been in baseball since 1970 (he's old guard), who went so far to say that Beane & the likes of the sabermeticians are "ruining the game." I think that's a bit much.

The battle rages on between the small market (A's, Brewers & Royals) v. big market teams (Yankees, Red Sox & Phillies). The book brings up a chart that showed how the A's (lowest payroll) were in 1st place of the AL West while the Rangers (biggest payroll in the division) were in last place. There's a lot that could go wrong with sabermetrics (as well as the traditional methods) but things fell into place during that time and that shouldn't be overlooked. I've always felt that it's not how much a team spends it's who they spend it on. For years George Steinbrenner paid fortunes to big hitters but couldn't win. When the Yankees put that money into pitching then their fortunes changed (1996-2001, 4 World Series Championships, WS appearances in 2001 & 2003). Of course they gave AJ Burnett $85 million and he may not make the post season roster for the 2nd year in a row. In 1999, Peter Angelos (owner of the Baltimore Orioles) signed slugger Albert Belle to huge contract ( 5 years $60+million - big back then especially). Well Belle played only 2 years and the O's were saddled with a massive contract & the team threw it in the tank (of which they are still in).

All in all, it's a crap shoot. Beane, despite the teams lack of success over the last 5 seasons continues to stick to his guns (although there have been a few changes) on his "scientific approach" to evaluating talent. In 2009 he stated, "It's all about evaluating skills and putting a price on them. Thirty years ago, stockbrokers used to buy stock strictly by feel. Let's put it this way: Anyone in the game with a 401(k) has a choice. They can choose a fund manager who manages their retirement by gut instinct, or one who chooses by research and analysis. I know which way I'd choose."

Beane states in the book (as well as the movie) that the team is counting cards and trying to level the field as they say. So sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. The A's and other teams like them are trying to do what they can. Good luck.

Why do athletes say these things?

Gone are the days when I used to care about the Sawks/Yanks rivalry with any real passion (granted I thought it was amazing to see Boston come back from 3-0 to defeat the Yankees). It's still one of the best in baseball (if not the best) but I'm just not into baseball as I was when I was a kid.  Mind you I've had some good times at the ballpark. Most recently at Wrigley Field for the Giants v. Cubs.

While checking out the ESPN New York app on my Android I came across an article about how Yankee catcher Russell Martin, "hates the Red Sox!" My first thought was, "who's Russell Martin?" Then I looked him up, http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martiru01.shtml. Basically he's a guy who grew up in Canada, drafted by the Dodgers & signed a free agent contract last winter with the Yankees. I'm curious to know how a kid growing up in Ontario learned to hate the Red Sox? If he had signed with the Blue Jays would he still be a Sox hater? 

 Why do pro athletes say stuff like this? It reminds me of when CC Sabathia was a free agent & after the Yankees offered him a contract that dwarfs the GNP of most countries he stated something along the lines that it was always a dream of his to pitch for the Yankees. I'm sure that the money had nothing to do with it. The same goes for Carl Crawford who grew up in Houston & how he was so happy the Sox signed him. It's because these teams throw ungodly sums of money at them and that's it. I'd bet that Sabathia's dream would've been to play for whomever offered him that much.

What I wouldn't give to hear a pro athlete just once say, "you know what I didn't want to sign with so & so but they made me an offer that floored me so I signed on the dotted line." After Carlos Beltran had his great run in 2004 and became a free agent he was courted by a lot of teams. When the Mets got serious it came out the Beltran was hesitant about playing in NYC. We there probably wasn't a much hesitation after a 7 year $100 million contract was dangled in front him. After that I'm sure that he always wanted to play int New York.

We live in a world where it's all about the money. Just admit it. I don't see pro athletes as money grubbing carpetbaggers, it's the owners that pay them (or overpay in some cases) but I'm tired of hearing how much guys want to play for whatever the team that offered them a ton of money.
 

The GOP War on Voting...seriously?

I came across this article in Rolling Stone Magazine, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830. Quite frankly I was setback in slackjawed disbelief. Once again this goes under the category of "this stuff isn't made up." But it makes sense. The GOP ran the show for 8 years, got a taste (or an addiction) of the power & they want it back. In a bad way.

All the historical allegories to Jim Crow are right on the money. It's sad really. The GOP's big soap box is that Obama & the Democrats want to turn the U.S. into a new socialist state. All while trying to take voting rights away from taxpaying citizens. Inconceivable. These guys give the term "sore loser" a new meaning. They seem to be trying to stack the deck for the 2012 election. It isn't bad enough that the GOP seems to drag their feet when trying to come up with solutions to our economic problems (please note that both sides seem to be content with pointing fingers at the other side but the GOP, to me anyway, just appear more stubborn than the rubber backboned Democrats) they have to eliminate voting rights.

The best part about the article is how the GOP is doing this under the guise of going after voter fraud. The stats show that most of the "voter fraud" are results of  people who were not aware of their status. Of course their actions just happened to be aimed at traditionally democratic voters. Thanks for the favor! Aren't there more important issues in these states (Ohio & Wisconsin are mentioned) than worry about trying to eliminate voting rights in order to stack the deck in 2012? The Republican Kansas Governor stated that an actual dead man voted. It turns out that the alleged dead voter was indeed very much alive. Once again these people just make stuff up, I'm certain of it.

According to the article, as early as 1980 this has been a GOP issue. Conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980, "I don't want everybody to vote, as a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Here's the Wikipedia link to this guy if you want to know more or get the full quote, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich.

The GOP has targeted those long standing perpetrators of "voter fraud" like Rock the Vote &the League of Women Voters. If the GOP gets there way in certain states these organization's members could be arrested. Wasn't there a big stink about 20 years or so ago about countries calling for sanctions against South Africa for not allowing it's Black citizens to vote? Yet here we are watching something similar, yet there isn't really a big stink. Where are the alleged "liberal media" that people like Ann Coulter are always railing against? I read this in Rolling Stone not in the NY Times or saw an expose on CNN or MSNBC. In fact Jesse Ventura mentioned stuff like this in a chapter of his book entitled, American Conspiracy.


In the film, Capitalism: A Love Story, director Michael Moore put together a segment in which some financial institution (that was involved in bringing about the financial meltdown in 2008) was worried that if regular people (i.e. the working class) exercised their voting rights, their running rough shot over Wall Street & netting billions in profits, could come to an end. So they were scared of people voting! Think it's possible that their lobby is throwing  money toward the GOP? It's a safe bet. On a side note, regardless of your personal feelings on Michael Moore, this film is worth watching as it paints a pretty good picture of who was responsible for the recent financial meltdown. It concentrates more on how it affected working class families than the global outreach like the film Inside Story.

As I've said before I'm politically neutral but I do feel that both the Democrats & the GOP serve their own interests. I recently read an old Playboy interview with Jesse Ventura in which he mentioned that when the country was founded, anybody could run for office. You could be a farmer, serve in office then go back to farming. Now it's an occupation. These guys get in office and don't want to leave. Once they get in, they no longer care about solving the problems of the country, they only care about the issues that will get them re-elected. My personal feeling is that a lot of the guys on Capitol Hill have been there too long. These people are no longer in touch with the working class (I say working class because I think that's what most people fall into. We all go to work everyday to raise a family and what not.)

That's it for now. Thanks again to all the men & women serving in the military. Your dedication & sacrifice are well appreciated. Thanks for your time.