 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Well, it was inevitable
Benne
Well, it was inevitable
October 20, 2008 at 08:13PM View BBCode
[url=http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=49781]Brad Pitt as Billy Beane?[/url] Really?
Bones2484
October 20, 2008 at 08:22PM View BBCode
Are they going to change the story like they did for 21? Will the A's win the World Series in 2002?
happy
im gonna go with "terrible movie...that i will watch."
Kinda like max payne.
October 20, 2008 at 08:30PM View BBCode
>_<im gonna go with "terrible movie...that i will watch."
Kinda like max payne.
sycophantman
October 20, 2008 at 10:14PM View BBCode
I hope they cast Samuel Jackson as Kenny Williams.
Smocko
October 20, 2008 at 11:57PM View BBCode
Featuring Alfred Molina as Ricardo Rincon, and Chad Bradford as himself.
Benne
October 21, 2008 at 04:51AM View BBCode
The real question is this: who gets to play Jeremy Brown?
jetpac
October 21, 2008 at 03:24PM View BBCode
Yeah, man, that guy was a stud. .300 career average? I think it was really a gutsy move for him to retire at the top of his game like that.
tworoosters
November 02, 2008 at 02:54AM View BBCode
Makes sense to me, Pitt has as many World Series rings as Beane.
rkinslow19
Wrong, Beane won rings in '87 with the Twins and '89 with the A's.
November 04, 2008 at 03:19AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Makes sense to me, Pitt has as many World Series rings as Beane.
Wrong, Beane won rings in '87 with the Twins and '89 with the A's.
tworoosters
Are you positive of that because he didn't appear in post season for either team and his "cough" contributions were nominal to say the least.
I've tried to find a listing of who received rings those years but have been unable to.
November 04, 2008 at 07:07AM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by tworoosters
Makes sense to me, Pitt has as many World Series rings as Beane.
Wrong, Beane won rings in '87 with the Twins and '89 with the A's.
Are you positive of that because he didn't appear in post season for either team and his "cough" contributions were nominal to say the least.
I've tried to find a listing of who received rings those years but have been unable to.
happy
November 04, 2008 at 09:00PM View BBCode
i love how top 25% team with bottom 10% salary just plain isnt good enough for some people. champion or it didnt happen.
dirtdevil
Beane's accomplishments with his limited resources are of course worthy of acclaim. but at the end of the careeer, yes, it IS all about the championships. this isn't horseshoes, you don't get points for almost.
November 04, 2008 at 09:59PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
i love how top 25% team with bottom 10% salary just plain isnt good enough for some people. champion or it didnt happen.
Beane's accomplishments with his limited resources are of course worthy of acclaim. but at the end of the careeer, yes, it IS all about the championships. this isn't horseshoes, you don't get points for almost.
happy
Although I dont really know what you mean by "points". You dont get points for championships either. next year, you are back at 0-0 no matter what.
And it isnt as if his career as GM is over. He has shown that he will be able to put his team in a position to win, and so maybe they will get lucky and make it. I mean, this argument is like the "Peyton Manning isnt great because he has only led his team to the playoffs a bajillion times but hasnt gone all the way, and we are going to discount the fact that he is only like 28." and then whoops, he won one.
[Edited on 11-4-2008 by happy]
November 04, 2008 at 10:44PM View BBCode
actually, you do. You really really do. Me personally? All i care about is if my team makes the playoffs, so that I at least have something to root for. If my team makes the playoffs every year and loses, I will think my GMs and players are doing a good job, even if i will be frusterated with the playoff exits. There are others like me. and thats why things beyond rings matters.Although I dont really know what you mean by "points". You dont get points for championships either. next year, you are back at 0-0 no matter what.
And it isnt as if his career as GM is over. He has shown that he will be able to put his team in a position to win, and so maybe they will get lucky and make it. I mean, this argument is like the "Peyton Manning isnt great because he has only led his team to the playoffs a bajillion times but hasnt gone all the way, and we are going to discount the fact that he is only like 28." and then whoops, he won one.
[Edited on 11-4-2008 by happy]
barterer2002
November 04, 2008 at 10:52PM View BBCode
There is a great difference between Charlie Manuel two weeks ago and Charlie Manuel today. Its all about the title.
happy
(its a rhetorical question. other than me still not knowing what points is. The only thing i could imagine is that pionts is "WS champion count", which would mean Dirtdevil's post was extremely obvious)
November 04, 2008 at 10:59PM View BBCode
well, i mean... if you assume fanbase happiness is how you accumulate these illustrious "points", if even one fan becomes happier from non world series success, wouldnt that mean that at least a fraction of a point was accumulated for non WS champion status?(its a rhetorical question. other than me still not knowing what points is. The only thing i could imagine is that pionts is "WS champion count", which would mean Dirtdevil's post was extremely obvious)
rkinslow19
Pretty sure I remember reading he got one with the Twins. He might not have got the one in 89 though.
I read moneyball a few months ago, so the details are a little fuzzy.
November 05, 2008 at 01:31AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by tworoosters
Makes sense to me, Pitt has as many World Series rings as Beane.
Wrong, Beane won rings in '87 with the Twins and '89 with the A's.
Are you positive of that because he didn't appear in post season for either team and his "cough" contributions were nominal to say the least.
I've tried to find a listing of who received rings those years but have been unable to.
Pretty sure I remember reading he got one with the Twins. He might not have got the one in 89 though.
I read moneyball a few months ago, so the details are a little fuzzy.
dirtdevil
(a) you've never played horsehoes.
(b) you wouldn't know a metaphor if it smacked you upside the head.
(c) both of the above.
tell me which please, i'm tired of trying to guess what's in your head.
to try and put things another way, that maybe you won't have so much trouble deciphering; let's compare these two GM's: Pat Gillick (9 Division titles, 2 Wild cards, 3 Pennants, 3 WS Titles and 9 playoff series wins in 26 years) and Billy Beane (4 Division titles, 1 wild card, 0 pennants, 0 WS titles and 0 playoff series wins in 11 years)? Keeping in mind that since 1998 (Beane's takeover date) Gillick has 3 divisions, 1 wildcard, 1 pennant and 1 world series, and that for most of Gillick's career there was no wildcard and so it was correspondingly harder to make the postseason, who would you rather have as GM?
I think the numbers suggest that Gillick has been the more successful GM. don't misundterstand me, i think that Beane is a good executive, without question. but he is not a god, he is not the fountain of all wisdom, and he is not one of the best GM's of all time. now, if he makes a few more playoff appearances, and wins a few series and a title or 3, then maybe he gets to be part of that discussion. until then however, he does not.
November 05, 2008 at 02:00AM View BBCode
happy, i have to assume that one of the following is true:(a) you've never played horsehoes.
(b) you wouldn't know a metaphor if it smacked you upside the head.
(c) both of the above.
tell me which please, i'm tired of trying to guess what's in your head.
to try and put things another way, that maybe you won't have so much trouble deciphering; let's compare these two GM's: Pat Gillick (9 Division titles, 2 Wild cards, 3 Pennants, 3 WS Titles and 9 playoff series wins in 26 years) and Billy Beane (4 Division titles, 1 wild card, 0 pennants, 0 WS titles and 0 playoff series wins in 11 years)? Keeping in mind that since 1998 (Beane's takeover date) Gillick has 3 divisions, 1 wildcard, 1 pennant and 1 world series, and that for most of Gillick's career there was no wildcard and so it was correspondingly harder to make the postseason, who would you rather have as GM?
I think the numbers suggest that Gillick has been the more successful GM. don't misundterstand me, i think that Beane is a good executive, without question. but he is not a god, he is not the fountain of all wisdom, and he is not one of the best GM's of all time. now, if he makes a few more playoff appearances, and wins a few series and a title or 3, then maybe he gets to be part of that discussion. until then however, he does not.
rkinslow19
Beane makes something out of nothing, and revolutionized the way players are evaluated.
November 05, 2008 at 02:24AM View BBCode
I understand where you're going dirt, but Gillick has always had a lot of resources.Beane makes something out of nothing, and revolutionized the way players are evaluated.
dirtdevil
November 05, 2008 at 02:26AM View BBCode
yes he did, and he deserves a great deal of credit for it. but he hasn't won squat, and his apologists will tell you it doesn't matter, which is censored . terry ryan has done more with as little and never gets any credit at all. is it because he didn't have a book written about him?
barterer2002
November 05, 2008 at 03:13AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
There are a number of GMs with loads of resources that have never won. Its totally relevant to say that Gillick has won while Benne has hasn't. It isn't like the argument is being made for Omar Minaya or Ed Wade and while nobody is arguing that the Phillies didn't have resources, they're 2008 payroll was 13th in MLB [url=http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/salaries]13th in MLB in 2008[/url]
rkinslow19
November 05, 2008 at 03:29AM View BBCode
Decided to look it up, you're right:rkinslow19 has attached this image:
happy
his first 11 years (remember, thats how long Beane has been GM) he made the playoffs once. after 11 years as GM, his team finally kind of came together, and they went on a bit of a run. 4 playoff appearances in 6 years.
He leaves and joins the orioles, they make the playoffs the first 2 years he was there. The players were basically the same, it really wasnt like he did something awesome. 1998 they dont make the playoffs, he leaves town.
00 he joins the Mariners, they make the playoffs his first 2 years there. then the next 2 years they dont, so he leaves.
and then 06 he joins the 2nd place phillies and they make the playoffs his 2nd and 3rd year.
I mean, I'm not saying he isnt a good GM, but beyond making the bluejays good for a few years, it seems like he has started with teams with solid foundations. Teams that can make the playoffs his first year there. You arent looking at the details.
No, Beane isnt a god, but he is an extremely good GM. Minnesota deserves much more credit than they are given. And yes, the reason they havent gotten much credit is because a book wasnt written about it. They are the other team who is really smart and has no money. The weird thing about minnesota is that they are smarter than the A's on a lot of fronts, and then they just put complete and utter garbage into the lineup at one or two spots in the lineup where they could literally get better by picking up a player from waivers. Its strange, and sometimes it kind of makes me feel like Minnesota isnt smart, just extremely lucky. (I doubt this is true, but it lets me sleep at night)
I have played horseshoes, i understand metaphors, but I'd love to hear your explaination of how "points" translates in this metaphor of yours, because you said that it is all about championships, and you dont get "points" for almost. so i figure "points" must be given out for championshps, meaning that you basically said that championships are the only thing that counts when tallying championships, which wouldve been really obvious.
[Edited on 11-5-2008 by happy]
November 05, 2008 at 05:27AM View BBCode
Gillick was the manager of a bunch of different teams, i mean, look at this:his first 11 years (remember, thats how long Beane has been GM) he made the playoffs once. after 11 years as GM, his team finally kind of came together, and they went on a bit of a run. 4 playoff appearances in 6 years.
He leaves and joins the orioles, they make the playoffs the first 2 years he was there. The players were basically the same, it really wasnt like he did something awesome. 1998 they dont make the playoffs, he leaves town.
00 he joins the Mariners, they make the playoffs his first 2 years there. then the next 2 years they dont, so he leaves.
and then 06 he joins the 2nd place phillies and they make the playoffs his 2nd and 3rd year.
I mean, I'm not saying he isnt a good GM, but beyond making the bluejays good for a few years, it seems like he has started with teams with solid foundations. Teams that can make the playoffs his first year there. You arent looking at the details.
No, Beane isnt a god, but he is an extremely good GM. Minnesota deserves much more credit than they are given. And yes, the reason they havent gotten much credit is because a book wasnt written about it. They are the other team who is really smart and has no money. The weird thing about minnesota is that they are smarter than the A's on a lot of fronts, and then they just put complete and utter garbage into the lineup at one or two spots in the lineup where they could literally get better by picking up a player from waivers. Its strange, and sometimes it kind of makes me feel like Minnesota isnt smart, just extremely lucky. (I doubt this is true, but it lets me sleep at night)
I have played horseshoes, i understand metaphors, but I'd love to hear your explaination of how "points" translates in this metaphor of yours, because you said that it is all about championships, and you dont get "points" for almost. so i figure "points" must be given out for championshps, meaning that you basically said that championships are the only thing that counts when tallying championships, which wouldve been really obvious.
[Edited on 11-5-2008 by happy]
tworoosters
November 05, 2008 at 06:25AM View BBCode
Nah, you've never played horseshoes either. At least not above little league or without a beer in your hand.
thatrogue
November 05, 2008 at 07:15AM View BBCode
I'm with Happy on this one. Gillick vs. Beane is not a reasonable comparison (though Ryan vs. Beane is).
happy
November 05, 2008 at 07:27AM View BBCode
yes, ryan vs beane is a reasonable one. and Ryan has done a great job. but look at the other small market teams. they suck, year in, year out.