Takes himself way too serious, I think he's wrong most of the time anyways.
Seriously, I wish he would just shut up. Evidently, most people must like him.
There's a reason some people announce, and some manage.
Seriously, I wish he would just shut up. Evidently, most people must like him.
There's a reason some people announce, and some manage.
Moneyball is a joke and a flawed premise. The A's were good b/c of their drafting and talent development, not that philosophy. I like Morgan, he does take himself a little too seriously, but he is incredibly knowledgeable.
As for him being an announcer and not a manager, that is all his choice, he has been offered several coaching, front office and manager jobs and has always turned them down. I think he would make a fantastic manager.
As for him being an announcer and not a manager, that is all his choice, he has been offered several coaching, front office and manager jobs and has always turned them down. I think he would make a fantastic manager.
ucking:Puccini said:
I don't buy that for a second, you can't honestly tell me they could tell that Eric Chavez was a high OBP/OPS hitter at Mt Carmel HS, there are 10,000 kids that are in high school, same with Tejada from whatever sandlot they signed him. AND, their success was derived from their starting pitching, not the bats. If you look at their stats from their very successful years, they were middle of the road in the AL in all the supposed "money ball" statistics. Trust me, I have had this discussion before and looked at those stats, yet they were in the top few teams in major pitching categories. What has happened of late? Their pitching isn't as good, or is often injured, and they still have the same offensive talent philosophy (and same general production) yet they aren't winning divisions.
Look at the Dodgers under Depodesta, horrible failure and he had a much larger payroll. The Red Sox didn't win b/c of that philosophy, they too won b/c of their pitching, bullpen (remember the disastrous bullpen by committee experiment from 03? Closers are worthless is a staple of moneyball) and payroll. Look at the moves they made in the 04 off season, many were failures (Renteria over Cabrera as the best example, the dismantling of the bullpen set up guys, Pokey Reese gone in favor of Bellhorn) and typical money ball moves at the expense of quality ball players who weren't money ball players.
I give BEane plenty of credit for building a winner on a tight budget and I do firmly believe there is a valuable place statistics and sabermetrics play in talent evaluation, but to put as much stock in it as they do is a mistake.
And, look at the 04 Red Sox, they were floundering until the Nomar trade and late season moves, all of which were very un-moneyball moves. Bringing in good defensive players (Cabrera, Roberts, Mentkiewicz) in lieu of Nomar and the other scrubs they had. They don't win unless they make those moves.
Closers aren't "worthless," it's just that Beane believed that its possible to take a hardthrowing pitcher, put him in a closing situation, get a bunch of saves, and then trade up for a high quality player.
It's not really about a set of rules, but of value, getting the best for your money.
And the A's, after a horrible start, came pretty close to winning their division last year.
It's not really about a set of rules, but of value, getting the best for your money.
And the A's, after a horrible start, came pretty close to winning their division last year.
