Re: SI's Verducci WEEI: 'Red flags' on Crawford
posted at 10/7/2011 8:29 PM EDT
In Response to Re: SI's Verducci WEEI: 'Red flags' on Crawford
[QUOTE]'Moneyball' and the Bill James philosophy does not work. It is so much horsedung that it is not even funny anymore. What it does is it makes teams like Oakland and Minnesota failures , but not 'colossal" failures because even though they don't win anything, they don't spend alot of money failing , so the failure seems less glaring. When New York or Boston applies "moneyball" it usually is to round out the roster, both teams have high priced regulars and when they fail with these huge payrolls it is devastating. The way to success is not "moneyball", it is knowing the makeup of your players...do they love the game?, do they have a good work ethic?, can they produce under pressure?, are they going to tank it after signing a big contract? ...computer models and printouts don't tell you this, you have to watch them play, converse with them and players that they have played with and against, etc. What do stats tell you about the abilities and the work ethic of Dustin Pedroia vs. Alex Rodrigues?...the stats would say A-Rod is the better player to have on your team...the stats lie. They are constantly bombarding us with new measuring tools, new stats, You don't need them , use your eyes.
Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]
Carl Crawford was not exactly a "Moneyball" player, and actually goes a long way towards proving the philosophy than not.
By the way, what are you basing Carl Crawford's work ethic and passion on? The man had the opportunity to play division 1 basketball at UCLA and division 1 football at Nebraska, Florida, Texas and other schools. but instead chose baseball. Does that tell you he hates baseball somehow?
Or better yet - are you saying you can scout a player's passion and work ethic by watching him? What else does it tell you? The people on this board have watched Lackey all year and determined him to be an attitude problem, yet the Sox manager refuted it. Guess who is the only one to actually know? (And many still contend he is. Apparently believing eyes does not apply to ears as well.)
What did your eyes tell you about Crawford that the rest of the world missed? And why is a one year sample from a 9 year career the only valid data point?
There are some solid realities to moneyball and using other tools to evaluate players. If you don't like them, don't use them. To be honest, no one in any front office anywhere cares what we think on this message board, or if we have embraced sabermetrics.
However, if you want to climb back into the stone ages of BA/HR/RBI and the Sox to adopt your appraoch, they are far, far more likely to keep making the same mistakes that this team made from 1918 through 2004.
By the way, you offered nothing to support why A-Ros is the worse player. An unfair comparison, given A-Rod is 8 years older and plays a different position.
But if you want to compare passion and work ethic to simply gifted athletes with gaudy stats, who would you rather have as your shortstop - Mike Aviles or Jose Reyes? No scouts ever liked Aviles. Aviles played division 2 ball and was surpsie 7th round overdraft. His bonus when he signed for $1,000. When the Royals called him up last year, he wasn't even starting in AAA. I would bet there isn't a happier guy to be in MLB than Mike Aviles. He works hard. He does everything he possibly can.
Or, do you like Jose Reyes and his MVP potential?