Moneyball II?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Moneyball II?

    Moneyball I is of course sabermetrics and the growth of new and often better ways of measuring player effectiveness.  The Sox still pay Bill James, one of the gurus of sabermetrics, so we know the FO uses them a lot.   

    But is there a moneyball II and is it as much about psychological makeup as about numbers? 

    Last night after the game John Farrell commented that this team is coming together very quickly and you can see it on the bench.  Peter Abraham, Nick Cafardo, and others have commented that Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes--I maybe have the players wrong, so feel free to correct me-- were acquired as much for their personalities as for their skills. 

    We were also told Becket in particular, but maybe Gonzalez and Crawford as well, was traded because he was a negative influence on the team.  Gonzalez, I hasten to add, was almost certainly not a negative influence, but maybe he wasn't much of a positive one either.  Crawford simply didn't play enough.  What we know for sure is that the 2011 team inexplicably collapsed in September 2011, and was dead last in the AL East in 2012 despite a large salary base and I am sure an extensive use of sabermetrics.  

    The 2004 Sox sometimes called themselves the dirt dogs, and they won in part because of they way they fit together and contributed, especially at bat, throughout the lineup.  Numbers and talent still count, of course, and the Sox in 2004 had two prodigious hitters in Ramirez and Ortiz, with a strong supporting cast, and some pretty good pitchers, especially Curt Schilling. 

    This team right now is vastly different from the 2012 version--a new RF, new LF, new SS, new 1B, and new DH (for now).  And third baseman Middlebrooks has only played half a season in Boston.  Despite shedding a lot of salary last year, the Sox still have a large salary base and have to worry about the luxury tax.  Ben Cherington did not have carte blanche in the offseason. 

    So far, so good.  Just 4 games, but all 4 are on the road and within a tough division.  The pitching so far has been way better than 2012--starters and bullpen.  Lester could have been better, Dempster was so-so and lost, and Doubront got hit hard (but escaped with 3 runs in 5 innings), but all four starters went at least 5 innings in their debuts.  The bullpen has been superb, especially last night.  I think the pitchers may be buoyed by the knowledge they have a pretty good defense behind them--speed in the outfield and great skills at 3 or the 4 infield positions.   Hitting has been timely.  Victorino's poor ST is now meaningless.  Finally, a couple of dingers last night.  Iglesias has been mildly spectacular batting 9th.  Pettitte beat us because good pitching always beats good hitting.   So it isn't all about psychology.  You do need the skills. 

     

     

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    maxbialystock, I enjoyed reading your post, thank you for sharing.   :)

    So far, Cherington, Farrell and the players have done a great job.  The clubhouse is having fun, playing their butts off and supporting each other. 

    As for Moneyball II, I would respectfully disagree.  After all, Boston is fortunate to have a payroll of over $150 million.  Teams like Oakland or Tampa Bay have to really think outside of the box with their $60 million payroll. 

    But anyway, so far, I love this team! 

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    Ice Cream,

    You're right of course.  The core meaning of moneyball is doing more with less.  Thus last year the Athletics had a pretty good team with a low salary base because that's what they can afford.

    That said, I think we can all agree big market teams are not prohibited from using sabermetrics and trying to get the most for the dollars, copious as those might be. 

    The problem is that big market owners, especially when they have financially successful team like the Sox and Yankees, are tempted to go after big money players because the fans expect it.  Thus the acquisition before  2011 of two such players by the Sox--Gonzalez and Crawford, each making over $20M per season.  Fortunately, this time the Dodgers, also a big market team, also felt the need to get big money and big name players to rejuvenate their fan base. 

    If Ben C were really engaging in moneyball, I agree, he would not only have dumped Crawford, Gonzalez, and Beckett, he would probably not have acquired Victorino or Dempster and might have traded away Ellsbury (or kept him and put Bradley in RF with that rocket arm).  Forget Drew--Iglesias would have been told he was the SS.  And so on. 

    All that said, I can't help thinking a big part of this remake is team chemistry, in this case, instant chemistry and addition (to good chemistry) by subtraction (losing the negative guys, especially Beckett, who was the core reason for the trade to LA). 

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    Ive always said that chemistry is important. Sure, you can have 25 players and 25 taxis and still win. That doesnt mean its better.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    Moneyball I is of course sabermetrics and the growth of new and often better ways of measuring player effectiveness.  The Sox still pay Bill James, one of the gurus of sabermetrics, so we know the FO uses them a lot.   

    But is there a moneyball II and is it as much about psychological makeup as about numbers? 

    Last night after the game John Farrell commented that this team is coming together very quickly and you can see it on the bench.  Peter Abraham, Nick Cafardo, and others have commented that Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes--I maybe have the players wrong, so feel free to correct me-- were acquired as much for their personalities as for their skills. 

    We were also told Becket in particular, but maybe Gonzalez and Crawford as well, was traded because he was a negative influence on the team.  Gonzalez, I hasten to add, was almost certainly not a negative influence, but maybe he wasn't much of a positive one either.  Crawford simply didn't play enough.  What we know for sure is that the 2011 team inexplicably collapsed in September 2011, and was dead last in the AL East in 2012 despite a large salary base and I am sure an extensive use of sabermetrics.  

    The 2004 Sox sometimes called themselves the dirt dogs, and they won in part because of they way they fit together and contributed, especially at bat, throughout the lineup.  Numbers and talent still count, of course, and the Sox in 2004 had two prodigious hitters in Ramirez and Ortiz, with a strong supporting cast, and some pretty good pitchers, especially Curt Schilling. 

    This team right now is vastly different from the 2012 version--a new RF, new LF, new SS, new 1B, and new DH (for now).  And third baseman Middlebrooks has only played half a season in Boston.  Despite shedding a lot of salary last year, the Sox still have a large salary base and have to worry about the luxury tax.  Ben Cherington did not have carte blanche in the offseason. 

    So far, so good.  Just 4 games, but all 4 are on the road and within a tough division.  The pitching so far has been way better than 2012--starters and bullpen.  Lester could have been better, Dempster was so-so and lost, and Doubront got hit hard (but escaped with 3 runs in 5 innings), but all four starters went at least 5 innings in their debuts.  The bullpen has been superb, especially last night.  I think the pitchers may be buoyed by the knowledge they have a pretty good defense behind them--speed in the outfield and great skills at 3 or the 4 infield positions.   Hitting has been timely.  Victorino's poor ST is now meaningless.  Finally, a couple of dingers last night.  Iglesias has been mildly spectacular batting 9th.  Pettitte beat us because good pitching always beats good hitting.   So it isn't all about psychology.  You do need the skills. 

     

     

     

     

     




    This team is already noticeably different than the Beckett teams. Did everyone here notice last night when Uehara returned to the dugout after pitching out of a jam? There was a lot of whooping and hollering in the dugout that I NEVER saw with the past two versions of the Red Sox. Gomes leads a lot of that stuff too. This is not the most talented team on paper, but its nice to see that they visibly care about winning.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

     

    They seem to be developing an "Us against the world" mentality, and that's a very good thing. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    Moneyball I is of course sabermetrics and the growth of new and often better ways of measuring player effectiveness.  The Sox still pay Bill James, one of the gurus of sabermetrics, so we know the FO uses them a lot.   

    But is there a moneyball II and is it as much about psychological makeup as about numbers? 

    Last night after the game John Farrell commented that this team is coming together very quickly and you can see it on the bench.  Peter Abraham, Nick Cafardo, and others have commented that Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes--I maybe have the players wrong, so feel free to correct me-- were acquired as much for their personalities as for their skills. 

    We were also told Becket in particular, but maybe Gonzalez and Crawford as well, was traded because he was a negative influence on the team.  Gonzalez, I hasten to add, was almost certainly not a negative influence, but maybe he wasn't much of a positive one either.  Crawford simply didn't play enough.  What we know for sure is that the 2011 team inexplicably collapsed in September 2011, and was dead last in the AL East in 2012 despite a large salary base and I am sure an extensive use of sabermetrics.  

    The 2004 Sox sometimes called themselves the dirt dogs, and they won in part because of they way they fit together and contributed, especially at bat, throughout the lineup.  Numbers and talent still count, of course, and the Sox in 2004 had two prodigious hitters in Ramirez and Ortiz, with a strong supporting cast, and some pretty good pitchers, especially Curt Schilling. 

    This team right now is vastly different from the 2012 version--a new RF, new LF, new SS, new 1B, and new DH (for now).  And third baseman Middlebrooks has only played half a season in Boston.  Despite shedding a lot of salary last year, the Sox still have a large salary base and have to worry about the luxury tax.  Ben Cherington did not have carte blanche in the offseason. 

    So far, so good.  Just 4 games, but all 4 are on the road and within a tough division.  The pitching so far has been way better than 2012--starters and bullpen.  Lester could have been better, Dempster was so-so and lost, and Doubront got hit hard (but escaped with 3 runs in 5 innings), but all four starters went at least 5 innings in their debuts.  The bullpen has been superb, especially last night.  I think the pitchers may be buoyed by the knowledge they have a pretty good defense behind them--speed in the outfield and great skills at 3 or the 4 infield positions.   Hitting has been timely.  Victorino's poor ST is now meaningless.  Finally, a couple of dingers last night.  Iglesias has been mildly spectacular batting 9th.  Pettitte beat us because good pitching always beats good hitting.   So it isn't all about psychology.  You do need the skills. 

     

     

     

     

     

     




    this team is already noticeably difTferent than the Beckett teams. Did everyone here notice last night when Uehara returned to the dugout after pitching out of a jam? There was a lot of whooping and hollering in the dugout that I NEVER saw with the past two versions of the Red Sox. Gomes leads a lot of that stuff too. This is not the most talented team on paper, but its nice to see that they visibly care about winning.

     

     



    Along with putting a good product on the field, I think it was the front office's #1 priority, pumpsie. Hard to have one, without the other. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    Team chemistry or team morale definitely plays a role in a team's success.  It's great to have players like Gomes and Victorino for that reason, along with their talent.  IMO, it starts with the manager.  There seems to be such a difference in the clubhouse atmosphere with Farrell at the helm rather than BV.

    Interesting tweet that I read about the team's OBP being .397 so far early in the season.  The team won't maintain that, but what a far cry from the .315 OBP from last year.  When the players are getting on base rather than making outs, good things tend to happen.  That is Moneyball at its finest.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Team chemistry or team morale definitely plays a role in a team's success.  It's great to have players like Gomes and Victorino for that reason, along with their talent.  IMO, it starts with the manager.  There seems to be such a difference in the clubhouse atmosphere with Farrell at the helm rather than BV.

    Interesting tweet that I read about the team's OBP being .397 so far early in the season.  The team won't maintain that, but what a far cry from the .315 OBP from last year.  When the players are getting on base rather than making outs, good things tend to happen.  That is Moneyball at its finest.

     



    +1; except they still have one of the highest payrolls, so it's more of a chemistry thing than a Moneyball thing IMO; and obviously BV was a mistake.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    Team chemistry or team morale definitely plays a role in a team's success.  It's great to have players like Gomes and Victorino for that reason, along with their talent.  IMO, it starts with the manager.  There seems to be such a difference in the clubhouse atmosphere with Farrell at the helm rather than BV.

    Interesting tweet that I read about the team's OBP being .397 so far early in the season.  The team won't maintain that, but what a far cry from the .315 OBP from last year.  When the players are getting on base rather than making outs, good things tend to happen.  That is Moneyball at its finest.

     

     



    +1; except they still have one of the highest payrolls, so it's more of a chemistry thing than a Moneyball thing IMO; and obviously BV was a mistake.

     

     



    Before he ever managed a game

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    To me, guys like Adrian were not character problems. Even Crawford. Adrian has been a model citizen his entire career  and basically carried the Padres on his back for years. A great person in the clubhouse.

    It was BV that was the problem. Not guys like Adrian. And Becket has almost singlehandedly won 2 WS. He wasn't a problem either overall.

    All that said, were either a charismatic leader spurring the rest of the team to greater heights just on the strength of their will power? At this point in their careers. Probably not. We needed to start over and I'm all for it.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Team chemistry or team morale definitely plays a role in a team's success.  It's great to have players like Gomes and Victorino for that reason, along with their talent.  IMO, it starts with the manager.  There seems to be such a difference in the clubhouse atmosphere with Farrell at the helm rather than BV.

    Interesting tweet that I read about the team's OBP being .397 so far early in the season.  The team won't maintain that, but what a far cry from the .315 OBP from last year.  When the players are getting on base rather than making outs, good things tend to happen.  That is Moneyball at its finest.

     



    BV was the anti-Moneyball manager.  I don't think he paid any attention to fundamentals at all. The OBP plummetted while he was here, as did the K/W ration.

    IRT to chemistry, it is important, but it's tough to say whether chemistry contributes to winning, or whether winning contributes to chemistry.  Had Beckett and Lester and Buchholz been healthy and pitching well in September, 2011, everyone in BB would be taking a fried chicken and beer break.  There would've been management studies about how guys like Lackey were the key to success, because he handed everyone a beer after the game.

    But because we lost, it is implied that these things are bad.

    And so it will be this year.

    If we win, it will be because we chose players with a good attitude over players with good talent.

    And if we lose, it will be because we chose players with good attitudes instead of players with good stats.

    Welcome to the human psyche.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Moneyball II?

      Nothing wrong with $-BALL ..... Get used to it asthe "day of the JUICE" is over....... Actually, the Sox have benn more fun to watch than watching the likes of Papi plod along on the bases !!

     

Share