 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Well, it was inevitable
dirtdevil
as i said, you have to keep in mind when evaluating gillilck's toronto record that there was no wild card. the blue jays would have been the wild card team in 84 (89 wins), 87 (96 wins) and 90 (86 wins) as well had the current format existed then. so that would have been playoff appearances in 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. certainly that wasn't the format at the time, but it does show how we're sort of comparing apples to oranges with gillick's early tenure. the simple fact is that there are more playoff spots available for beane than there were for gillick at that time. considering that toronto was an expansion team in 77 with an absolutely awful player pool to select from, that's a pretty good record. it took seattle until 95 to make the playoffs.
the 95 orioles won 71 games. gillick adds alomar, surhoff, wells, myers and mcdowell and the 96 team wins 88 and the wildcard. that's hardly "basically the same" roster. in 98 he leaves town not because they don't make the playoffs, but because he can't stand working for angelos anymore. as an orioles fan i'd have thought you'd know that.
in 00 gillick adds olerud, mclemore, cameron, sele, sasaki, rhodes. sure griffey and arod are already there, but gillick makes over the roster in the offseason. the team goes from 79 wins to 91 in a year and then to 116 when he adds boone, ichiro, charlton and nelson in 2001. the next two years they still win 93 games but miss the wildcard. have you considered that perhaps he wins because he's good and makes (for the most part of course) good moves, not simply because he inherits competitive teams? lots of guys inherit competitive teams and don't win diddly squat.
actually, i am. as usual you've done only the most superficial of analysis (if any) and concluded that your original opinion is correct.
look, i've said all along that beane is a very good GM. but he is also an overrated GM because of all the hype moneyball has created around him.
[Edited on 11-5-2008 by dirtdevil]
November 05, 2008 at 01:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by 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.
as i said, you have to keep in mind when evaluating gillilck's toronto record that there was no wild card. the blue jays would have been the wild card team in 84 (89 wins), 87 (96 wins) and 90 (86 wins) as well had the current format existed then. so that would have been playoff appearances in 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. certainly that wasn't the format at the time, but it does show how we're sort of comparing apples to oranges with gillick's early tenure. the simple fact is that there are more playoff spots available for beane than there were for gillick at that time. considering that toronto was an expansion team in 77 with an absolutely awful player pool to select from, that's a pretty good record. it took seattle until 95 to make the playoffs.
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.
the 95 orioles won 71 games. gillick adds alomar, surhoff, wells, myers and mcdowell and the 96 team wins 88 and the wildcard. that's hardly "basically the same" roster. in 98 he leaves town not because they don't make the playoffs, but because he can't stand working for angelos anymore. as an orioles fan i'd have thought you'd know that.
00 he joins the Mariners, they make the playoffs his first 2 years there. then the next 2 years they dont, so he leaves.
in 00 gillick adds olerud, mclemore, cameron, sele, sasaki, rhodes. sure griffey and arod are already there, but gillick makes over the roster in the offseason. the team goes from 79 wins to 91 in a year and then to 116 when he adds boone, ichiro, charlton and nelson in 2001. the next two years they still win 93 games but miss the wildcard. have you considered that perhaps he wins because he's good and makes (for the most part of course) good moves, not simply because he inherits competitive teams? lots of guys inherit competitive teams and don't win diddly squat.
You arent looking at the details.
actually, i am. as usual you've done only the most superficial of analysis (if any) and concluded that your original opinion is correct.
look, i've said all along that beane is a very good GM. but he is also an overrated GM because of all the hype moneyball has created around him.
[Edited on 11-5-2008 by dirtdevil]
dirtdevil
ryan is a better comparison in terms of payroll resources, absolutely. but if people are going to give beane extra credit for almost winning with lower resources, gillick deserves the proper credit for actually winning when given more resources to work with. you only have to look at jp riccardi in toronto to see how things don't always turn out to be a success when resources are increased. you still have to make the proper moves with the extra money. beane gets a lot of hype because of moneyball and it's not all deserved. he's almost bordering on overrated at this point, given what he's actually accomplished. while terry ryan toils away in almost complete obscurity despite having arguably more success than beane with fewer respources in minny.
November 05, 2008 at 02:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
I'm with Happy on this one. Gillick vs. Beane is not a reasonable comparison (though Ryan vs. Beane is).
ryan is a better comparison in terms of payroll resources, absolutely. but if people are going to give beane extra credit for almost winning with lower resources, gillick deserves the proper credit for actually winning when given more resources to work with. you only have to look at jp riccardi in toronto to see how things don't always turn out to be a success when resources are increased. you still have to make the proper moves with the extra money. beane gets a lot of hype because of moneyball and it's not all deserved. he's almost bordering on overrated at this point, given what he's actually accomplished. while terry ryan toils away in almost complete obscurity despite having arguably more success than beane with fewer respources in minny.
happy
Theo Epstein is the moneyball GM with a decent amount of money. started in 2003. 6 years, 5 playoff appearances, 2 world series victories. That puts Gillick to shame. 2003 he picked up Millar, Mueller, Wakefield and Ortiz (im just comparing rosters on baseball-reference, some of these mightve been minor leaguers or injured players in 2002). and obviously he has made a bunch of big trades and signings since then that have panned out.
the thing about minnesota is that sometimes they make [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puntoni01.shtml]inexcusably dumb decisions[/url] that makes you wonder if it really is intelligence that caused them to get this far. but the amazing thing is, yes they have managed to do more with less money despite needing to overcome some severely stupid roster choices.
November 05, 2008 at 04:41PM View BBCode
ok, ill concede the gillick thing. but an excellent GM being possibly better than Beane doesnt mean Beane isnt one also (and yes, the higher resources does make it like comparing apples and oranges).Theo Epstein is the moneyball GM with a decent amount of money. started in 2003. 6 years, 5 playoff appearances, 2 world series victories. That puts Gillick to shame. 2003 he picked up Millar, Mueller, Wakefield and Ortiz (im just comparing rosters on baseball-reference, some of these mightve been minor leaguers or injured players in 2002). and obviously he has made a bunch of big trades and signings since then that have panned out.
the thing about minnesota is that sometimes they make [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puntoni01.shtml]inexcusably dumb decisions[/url] that makes you wonder if it really is intelligence that caused them to get this far. but the amazing thing is, yes they have managed to do more with less money despite needing to overcome some severely stupid roster choices.
dirtdevil
November 05, 2008 at 04:48PM View BBCode
epstein is an excellent GM, probably the best in baseball right now. and i've never said that beane isn't a very good GM, he is. i just sometimes (often) get tired of the stat-heads pushing him forward as some kind of baseball god over guys like ryan, gillick and, yes, epstein, who have actually won something. (in ryan's case i know it's just a playoff series or two, but that's still more than beane)
happy
I dont think he is a god, but i think the playoff success is not the best argument to make. We all know from SimD, the playoffs is a crapshoot, making the playoffs takes skill.
November 05, 2008 at 05:02PM View BBCode
I dont know, I feel like Beane has done everything right. It isnt as if he made a team that was destined to fail in the playoffs but succeed in the regular season. He intentionally picked up players who were generally thought to be MORE valuable in the playoffs. Strong starting lineup, good closer, high home run hitting hitters.I dont think he is a god, but i think the playoff success is not the best argument to make. We all know from SimD, the playoffs is a crapshoot, making the playoffs takes skill.
Benne
Beane is good at what he does. Gillick, Ryan and Epstein are also good at what they do. The great thing about baseball is there is no one uniform way to build a baseball team. You can use statistical analysis exclusively, you can have a good team of scouts, or you can do both. The best teams generally use both.
November 05, 2008 at 06:21PM View BBCode
How many times have we had this discussion?Beane is good at what he does. Gillick, Ryan and Epstein are also good at what they do. The great thing about baseball is there is no one uniform way to build a baseball team. You can use statistical analysis exclusively, you can have a good team of scouts, or you can do both. The best teams generally use both.
dirtdevil
(sorry, it was just sitting there...)
November 05, 2008 at 07:27PM View BBCode
what do the mariners use?(sorry, it was just sitting there...)
FuriousGiorge
November 05, 2008 at 07:42PM View BBCode
When they were reading the letters out on the board, they were wondering where the censored the gods were taking them.
whiskybear
Your Mariners history is a bit lacking. (Griffey was gone in 2000, traded for Cameron and Brett Tomko. A-Rod, of course, left before the 2001 season.) Also, Gillick failed to make a significant deal at the deadline in each of his years with the M's, which really killed us each time.
November 05, 2008 at 07:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
00 he joins the Mariners, they make the playoffs his first 2 years there. then the next 2 years they dont, so he leaves.
in 00 gillick adds olerud, mclemore, cameron, sele, sasaki, rhodes. sure griffey and arod are already there, but gillick makes over the roster in the offseason. the team goes from 79 wins to 91 in a year and then to 116 when he adds boone, ichiro, charlton and nelson in 2001. the next two years they still win 93 games but miss the wildcard. have you considered that perhaps he wins because he's good and makes (for the most part of course) good moves, not simply because he inherits competitive teams? lots of guys inherit competitive teams and don't win diddly squat.
Your Mariners history is a bit lacking. (Griffey was gone in 2000, traded for Cameron and Brett Tomko. A-Rod, of course, left before the 2001 season.) Also, Gillick failed to make a significant deal at the deadline in each of his years with the M's, which really killed us each time.
happy
you deserve at least two smilie faces for this post. use them at your discresion.
November 05, 2008 at 08:43PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Same thing the O's use. Ouija.
you deserve at least two smilie faces for this post. use them at your discresion.
dirtdevil
well, ok, but honestly, who's isn't really?
November 05, 2008 at 09:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
Your Mariners history is a bit lacking.
well, ok, but honestly, who's isn't really?
tworoosters
[url=http://baseballevolution.com/richard/2008beane.html]Revisting Billy Beane's Perfect Draft[/url].
November 06, 2008 at 01:03AM View BBCode
Richard van Zandt won't be lining up to get into the movie.[url=http://baseballevolution.com/richard/2008beane.html]Revisting Billy Beane's Perfect Draft[/url].
happy
November 06, 2008 at 01:58AM View BBCode
and i love the Jeremy Brown part. omg terrible pick. way to pick the guy who gets an elbow injury!
dirtdevil
November 06, 2008 at 02:03AM View BBCode
you know happy, the 'small sample theater' line made me laugh. you should have left it at that though- the jeremy brown thing just sounds like you're whining that people are picking on your hero.
tworoosters
November 06, 2008 at 03:47AM View BBCode
Yeah after all Brown was the only catcher in that draft who could hit.
drew
November 06, 2008 at 03:57AM View BBCode
I think things would be much better if we only busted happy's balls when he said stuff that was... you know... retarded.
whiskybear
November 06, 2008 at 05:47AM View BBCode
I think the world would be a better place if Happy, just once, used the correct spelling of "apparently."
tworoosters
Happy's analyzed the secondary numbers and can prove that it should have three "a"s.
Anyone who doesn't agree is just wrong, they're probably a linguist and everyone knows linguists are the worst judges of language.
November 06, 2008 at 06:38AM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
I think the world would be a better place if Happy, just once, used the correct spelling of "apparently."
Happy's analyzed the secondary numbers and can prove that it should have three "a"s.
Anyone who doesn't agree is just wrong, they're probably a linguist and everyone knows linguists are the worst judges of language.
happy
November 06, 2008 at 07:27AM View BBCode
that and warrior. the two words i can never remember how to spell.