Billy Beane really IS a freaking genius!

[ISiddiqui]

People thought this may be a down year for the A's. Beane dealt both Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder (and kept the wrong one of the Big 3). In the beginning of the year it seemed the naysayers were right and whether Beane was right would have to wait until the young pitchers he got in return would be ready.

Well, guess who is now tied for 1st in the Wild Card Standings. Apparently the A's turned on their 2nd half run a little earlier this time. They've been on fire since the beginning on June.

Perhaps this will end some grumblings that Beane was only successful because Hudson, Mulder, and Zito (even though Zito is still on the team).

[CraigSca]

It's a lot of fun watching the moves he makes. It's interesting to see that he's still one step ahead of the game, even after the book.

I wonder what will be undervalued next?

[ISiddiqui]

I haven't really seen them play much this year (perhaps its that East Coast bias again ), but I'm not sure how they are doing it. It seems they still got that great OBP (8th in the majors), but bad SLG, and great ERA & WHIP (mostly from the bullpen it seems), but this team is much less on star power as the past Beane A's. I mean they have Chavez, Harden, Kotsay, Street and Crosby, but that's a far cry from Giambi, Tejada, Foulke, etc.

I'm just amazed how he finds these people.

[dawgfan]

I'm too lazy to find the pre-season threads discussing the A's trades, but I thought from the start that he'd made great trades in dealing Hudson and Mulder and figured the A's weren't going to dip much this year.

One thing to keep in mind with these deals - he was dealing from a position of strength. Hudson and Mulder are both still in their prime and both have good to great track records. He should've gotten max value for both, and he did - he and his staff usually do a very good job of prospect evaluation and identify guys likely to succeed.

As for the reason for their continued success - I think there are multiple reasons:

1. As mentioned above, Beane and his staff do a very good job of evaluating players, so they rarely get duds in their trades;
2. Beane's strategy of trading for guys that are about to become free agents allows him to get the benefit of a stretch-drive boost and then when they sign elsewhere in the off-season he gets extra draft picks;
3. While Beane's draft record isn't perfect, he's done a very good job of getting guys that can contribute and do so fairly quickly, which allows the A's to re-stock when they have to let established players go due to limited payroll
4. Not only does he draft well, he usually accumulates multiple extra picks which gives him a greater pool of young talent to build from

I wonder how well Beane would adapt to a higher-payroll team - it'd be interesting to see who he'd decide to keep given greater payroll flexibility. I also wonder if part of the appeal of Oakland for him is the payroll constraints, as though he were QuikSand playing with House Rules just to keep things interesting...

[ISiddiqui]

Well the big cogs in those deals were big time prospects which I didn't think would show their true value until next year or the year after, so I thought they'd muddle around .500 this year and then go back to 90+ wins the year after.

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

People thought this may be a down year for the A's. Beane dealt both Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder (and kept the wrong one of the Big 3). In the beginning of the year it seemed the naysayers were right and whether Beane was right would have to wait until the young pitchers he got in return would be ready.

Well, guess who is now tied for 1st in the Wild Card Standings. Apparently the A's turned on their 2nd half run a little earlier this time. They've been on fire since the beginning on June.

Perhaps this will end some grumblings that Beane was only successful because Hudson, Mulder, and Zito (even though Zito is still on the team).

What ^^^ said. I've been an A's fan since the mid-80s and have always been a positive thinker when it comes to their moves. But I'd be lying if after this last off-season I said I was hopeful for this year. I knew we would be better off in the future, but I basically had written this year off. So this has been a complete surprise to me and I really think we can sneak into the wildcard this year if our pitching holds up.

[DeToxRox]

Always fun watching the A's. In the FOFC Baseball Prediction thread, I had them as 2nd in the West.

I always have faith in BB.

[Easy Mac]

let me know when he wins 13 straight division titles, or leads the division while playing 13 rookies.

very good? yes... but ill take schuerholz

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

let me know when he wins 13 straight division titles, or leads the division while playing 13 rookies.

very good? yes... but ill take schuerholz

No question Schuerholz is good, with his best decisions being to hang on to Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone. He's also had a lot more money to play with than Beane...

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

let me know when he wins 13 straight division titles, or leads the division while playing 13 rookies.

very good? yes... but ill take schuerholz

And after all that he's only gotten one more WS Championship than the A's have....

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

let me know when he wins 13 straight division titles, or leads the division while playing 13 rookies.

very good? yes... but ill take schuerholz

And when he has a payroll that's consistently been the lowest in his division (as opposed to the highest or 2nd highest for most of that tenure), I'll give John that credit. Plus, I give most of the credit to Mazzone (in particular) and Cox, who is one of the 5-10 best managers of all time/.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

let me know when he wins 13 straight division titles, or leads the division while playing 13 rookies.

very good? yes... but ill take schuerholz

It's really a matter of taste. The two are clearly the top GMs in the game. It depends how much credit you give to Cox and Mazzone, I guess. You really couldn't go wrong with either of them.

Schuerholz has them on the brink of another decade of dominance as well. McCann is the best catching prospect in baseball, Marte is a stud, the outfielders are interesting and Mazzone turns water into wine on the pitching staff.

I personally like Beane better because he does it at about 30MM a year less, but you can't go wrong with either.

[Rizon]

All Beane's horses, and all Beane's men, can't get the A's past the Wildcard Round again.

[Swaggs]

I've been impressed at how shrewd a talent evaluator Shuerholtz has been. Few fans would have faulted him if he had extended and overpaid Maddux, Glavine, and others in sentimental moves, but he cut ties with them, seemingly just in time.

[ISiddiqui]

What others said about the vast differences in payroll. Could you imagine Beane with 30 million more?

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by Rizon

All Beane's horses, and all Beane's men, can't get the A's past the Wildcard Round again.

The funny thing is, is that the Braves hardly ever get passed the first round of the playoffs either. Both the A's and the Braves have a unique talent at choking once the playoffs start.

[rkmsuf]

meh, I hate the Beane ball washing. He's done nothing but tread water with a small payroll. Big deal.

[sovereignstar]

It's amazing at how much more publicity Beane gets over, oh say, Twins GM Terry Ryan.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

meh, I hate the Beane ball washing. He's done nothing but tread water with a small payroll. Big deal.

95 wins a year = treading water ???

[rkmsuf]

bah, he's won nothing

guy wanted to cut Varitek, that's how smart he is.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

bah, he's won nothing

guy wanted to cut Varitek, that's how smart he is.

OK. I'll start a team with Billy Beane as my GM and you can have a World Series winner like Joe Garagiola Jr. In 5 years, we will see who has a better team. Beane is a great GM - there is a debate over whether he is the BEST GM, but to say he is not one of the top GM's in the game is just dumb.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

It's amazing at how much more publicity Beane gets over, oh say, Twins GM Terry Ryan.

No question. Ryan also should be mentioned at the top - he also works with a very limited payroll and has done very well in building the Twins into consistent winners. The success of the Twins in similar circumstances to the A's has somewhat dampened the unspoken premise of Michael Lewis in "Moneyball" that Beane's non-traditional methods are the best way to win in baseball with a limited payroll.

The difference in publicity is pretty obvious though:

1. Beane's methods and evaluations were markedly different from most other GM's in baseball, and as word got around he started getting a lot of mention in the press (especially Rob Neyer);
2. Beane's not shy about talking to the media;
3. Once the book "Moneyball" was published, the spurts of publicity about Beane turned into a torrent;
4. Beane has made a number of high-profile trades that had some wondering what he was doing

In contrast, Ryan is less of a "stats" guy (though he incorporates statistical analysis) and thus is viewed as more traditional, and he's not into publicity for himself.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

It's amazing at how much more publicity Beane gets over, oh say, Twins GM Terry Ryan.

I think the Ryan has largely continued a system that worked before whereas Beane really pushed a new approach (although I think Alderson deserves more credit than he is given for the A's). The book helped Beane too. None of this is to slight Ryan - he is a high quality GM, but the reasons he gets less publicity seem reasonable to me. And he has continued to leave his IF in shambles for years for reasons I've never understood.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

OK. I'll start a team with Billy Beane as my GM and you can have a World Series winner like Joe Garagiola Jr. In 5 years, we will see who has a better team. Beane is a great GM - there is a debate over whether he is the BEST GM, but to say he is not one of the top GM's in the game is just dumb.

I know he his. Just tired of the ball washing. There are others of equal ability that don't get the royal genius treatment.

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Just tired of the ball washing.

Golden!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

It's amazing at how much more publicity Beane gets over, oh say, Twins GM Terry Ryan.

That's because Ryan has not had the lowest payroll in his division every year (by a good $15-20 million, at least), is in a division without any big spenders (highest payroll is $75 million or so I believe), and has gotten to beat up on KC and Detroit for 5 years. He's a good GM, but anyone who thinks Oakland's performance has been matched by Minnesota has no understanding of context and strength of schedule.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I know he his. Just tired of the ball washing. There are others of equal ability that don't get the royal genius treatment.

who ? sadly, your word alone isn't enough.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

who ? sadly, your word alone isn't enough.

sure it is. trust me on this one.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What others said about the vast differences in payroll. Could you imagine Beane with 30 million more?

I think Beane's a good GM, but it's much more difficult to go from "division contending" to "major playoff threat" than it is to ge from "average" to "division contending".

It seems to me that you need established stars (esp in your pitching staff) to win in the playoffs and some consistent veteran hitters. Both of those are extremely overvalued in today's marketplace (ie, look at the deals guys like Drew and Pedro signed). So, Beane's theories work well when trying to take a Minnesota, KC or Oakland to respectability, but I wonder what type of GM Beane would have to be to lead the Red Sox or the Angels. I don't know that you can assume he would excell in that arena as well. That said, I think Beane and Ryan in Minny have done remarkable jobs given their resources.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

I wonder what type of GM Beane would have to be to lead the Red Sox

Maybe like, I dunno, Theo Epstein (who is also a James guy) .

Oh, and the reason I don't think Ryan gets the same credit because he hasn't really had the big stars aside from Santana (Ortiz wasn't really a star until the BoSox). The A's had Giambi and then Tejada and Hudson and Mulder. I think the star power and the small payroll made media headlines.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Maybe like, I dunno, Theo Epstein (who is also a James guy) .

You mean throw a bunch of cash at a 40-year old with a bad back, overpay an overrated shortstop at the peak of his value and have about $20 million a year in two pitchers currently classified as "Closers" (Foulke and Schilling) - and be rumored to be interested in another agin closer (Wagner)?

Nah, I think Beane would be much better than Epstein.

In all fairness to Epstein, he has been a solid GM. But he's been very fortunate to have a large payroll to absorb some of the more risky moves he's made (Hillenbrand for BK Kim, Wells, Renteria, big money to Foulke and an extension to an aging Schilling). If a small market GM makes any of the above moves it could be disasterous.

Oh, and the reason I don't think Ryan gets the same credit because he hasn't really had the big stars aside from Santana (Ortiz wasn't really a star until the BoSox). The A's had Giambi and then Tejada and Hudson and Mulder. I think the star power and the small payroll made media headlines.

I would agree there. Beane has generated much more "top level talent" than Minnesota and that's what gets the headlines. But I think both are clearly in the upper echelon of GMs.

[Easy Mac]

Was Beane there when Giambi and the others were taken? I honestly have no idea.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Was Beane there when Giambi and the others were taken? I honestly have no idea.

Wasn't that during the Sandy Aldersen era?

[Philliesfan980]

Anyone who even tries to make an arguement for anyone other than Beane as the best GM in the past 20 years is crazy.

[Easy Mac]

There must be a lot of crazy people in the world.

[Swaggs]

There is an interesting article on ESPN.com with profiles of all the MLB GMs. It is pretty neat.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

But he's been very fortunate to have a large payroll to absorb some of the more risky moves he's made

Um... that's the point isn't it? With a bigger payroll you can spend big because you don't have to worry that much about mistakes. Oh, and that big contract closer was essential to that WS title last year . As is the other... um... "closer".

Theo was also the guy who brought in players like Millar, Muellar, and David Ortiz, who were undervalued at their past clubs.

He was also bold enough to deal Nomar for Mienky and Cabrera which gave the Sox the D they needed.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

There is an interesting article on ESPN.com with profiles of all the MLB GMs. It is pretty neat.

I believe it is "Insider".

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I believe it is "Insider".

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=41054

[ISiddiqui]

WOOOT!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... that's the point isn't it? With a bigger payroll you can spend big because you don't have to worry that much about mistakes. Oh, and that big contract closer was essential to that WS title last year . As is the other... um... "closer".

I agree here, I was just poking a little fun. My point was that you cannot be a true "moneyball GM" for the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels or Mets. When you take those jobs, getting value is trumped by winning. In other words, it's better to have a $100 million payroll and 105 wins than it is to have a $70 million payroll and 95 wins.

So, when you get to that point, you have to adjust as a GM. Theo's been a pretty good "big market" GM given his aggressive strategy in FA and through trades. Beane, on the other hand, has pretty much shunned big name FAs in favor of younger, more raw talent. If he went to Boston, the question becomes would Beane be as good at determining which 30-year old pitcher to throw $10 million a season at as he is at determining which prospect to draft/acquire? And, would he be willing to change his philosophy and throw big money at "overvalued" players in the hopes of going from 90 wins to 100 wins?

For Beane to GM the Sox, it would involve a massive shift in his current methods. It would be the same if Theo went to the Royals - he would also have to adjust. And, just because Epstein and Beane have done a nice job in their respective payroll situations does not mean they would be able to each have similar success if they switched jobs.

Theo was also the guy who brought in players like Millar, Muellar, and David Ortiz, who were undervalued at their past clubs.

Yes, but he also brought in BK Kim, Matt Mantei, Scott Williamson, David Wells, Jeremy Giambi, Scott Sauerbeck and many others that flamed out as million dollar busts. The question is could Theo be as good as Beane in choosing only 4-5 from this list and having most pan out?