- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Moneyball vs. Reaginsball: Not a movie, a real deal
July 10th, 2009, 6:10 pm · 23 Comments · posted by Earl Bloom, staff writer
Let’s stack up the offseason acquisitions of two AL West teams.
The defending division champions re-sign free agents Juan Rivera and Darren Oliver. They add free agents Brian Fuentes and Bobby Abreu.
Another team in the division signs Jason Giambi, Orlando Cabrera and Nomar Garciaparra. It also adds Matt Holliday in a much-ballyhooed trade from Colorado.
How’s that working out so far, Oakland? Giambi (.195), Cabrera (.252) and Garciaparra (.267, but only 11 RBIs around DL stints) have not done much.
Holliday, right, has eight home runs and is batting .275 — meanwhile, Huston Street, one of three players the A’s traded for him, has 22 saves, or 13 more than anyone in the current A’s pen.
By my accounting, the Angels and GM Tony Reagins are 4 for 4 on their acquisitions. Fuentes is an All-Star, Rivera could well have been one, Abreu has been a bargain at $5 million, and Oliver has been Oliver.
Sure, the Angels are locked in a struggle with the improved Texas Rangers for the division title, with the also-improved Seattle Mariners lurking, within striking distance.
The Rangers didn’t do a lot in the offseason, but brought in Andruw Jones, for a song, off the Dodgers’ discard pile; signed Omar Vizquel as a backup and mentor to rookie SS Elvis Andrus; and then, early in the season, claimed former Angels reliever Darren O’Day off waivers from the Mets.
As it turns out for Texas, less has been more.
Meanwhile, going into the last weekend before the All-Star Game, the Athletics are 11 1/2 games off the lead.
About this point last year, with the A’s within range, they traded pitchers Joe Blanton, Rich Harden and Chad Gaudin. Since their current rotation is young and under team control for a long while, they can’t even resort to that fan-insulting tactic.
Oakland last had a winning record in 2006, when it last made the playoffs, winning the AL West
but being swept by Detroit in the ALCS.
OK, not everything Reagins, at right with Maicer Izturis, and the Angels have done this season has panned out.
Somehow, they messed up the health of Ervin Santana, Scot Shields, Kelvim Escobar, John Lackey and Vladimir Guerrero — and can’t blame any of it on that most convenient scapegoat, the World Baseball Classic.
No, injuries aren’t excuses. But they are facts.
23 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
ADVERTISEMENT
It’s only a matter of time until Oakland’s ownership wises up and realizes Billy Beane is not the guy to lead this franchise. He as gotten absolutely nothing for trading Haren, Harden, & Blanton. The Harden trade is especially ridiculous. Everybody that he got from the Cubs is either in the minors or has been traded again. I have no clue what his plan is. Does he have a plan?
Last week’s trade for Hairston is a perfect example, why? How does that trade help?
Harden & Gaudin for Matt Murton, Eric Patterson & Sean Gallagher are you kidding me.
Dan Haren for Brett Anderson, Dana Eveland (Triple A), Greg Smith (tradede), & Carlos Gonzalez (traded)
Joe Blanton for Adrian Cardenas, Josh Outman, & Mathew Spencer Moneyball is dead. Beane & his computer are on his way out.
LMAO maybe Joe Morgan should run the A’s
Milton Bradley for Andre Ethier, too.
Mark, the possibilities are endless here.
I know I am probably going to be called a house organ and a homer because I think Reagins and Scioscia do a good, often great, job.
But as anyone who reads my stuff consistently knows, I will take a shot at the Angels if warranted. Just, coming off a 100-victory season, there was not a lot to condemn.
Playoffs are another animal, but I am old enough to remember the Angels going to them three times in their first 30 seasons. Most of today’s ubercritics are spoiled.
Earl, I don’t think the übercritics are spoiled so much as jealous. Anyone who walks around the stadium on a typical night hears overwhelming support and enthusiasm for the team. You don’t hear the griping that occurs online.
My theory is that the anonymity of the Internet gives courage to those who would never dare behave this way in public. They’re jealous of anyone who’s more successful than they are, because successful people are generally confident and don’t need to hide behind a modem spewing bile.
They attack Phyz and Rex because both are obviously happy, successful, well-liked people. Are they perfect? No. But then no one is. You read fan boards and you’ll find people who attack Vin Scully. I think there’s something about successful people that pushes a button in these critics.
A few years ago, I figured this out and stopped responding on the Angels fan board to the people who were constantly attacking and smearing me. I realized they were trying to bait me into engaging in their behavior, because in their minds it made me no better than they are. So then they started complaining that I won’t fight them! Which showed I was right — it wasn’t really about the facts, it was about their being jealous.
When the Angels were lovable losers, they really weren’t successful so these people didn’t resent them. Now the Angels are successful, so they become a target to attack.
When I moved here to Florida a month ago, I got the MLB Extra Innings package and was exposed to other teams’ broadcasters. I gotta say I really prefer Rex and Phyz. They’ve been together a long time, they’re genuine people, and because they’ve been here for so long they know the players, coaches and fandom intimately. WIth some of these other teams, I get the feeling they’re just going through the motions, or they’re faking emotions because their bosses think it’ll get the viewers excited about the product. Sure, our broadcasters do that too. All of them do. But Rex and Phyz just seem a lot more sincere about the team they’re covering than some of these other crews.
I love the Angels and I agree with Earl about the fans being spoiled. Those of us who are old enough to remember the clueless organization of the 20th century really enjoy today’s Angels but…
I have to disagree with you Stephen abot Phyz & Rex. They just don’t cut it.
I so prefer Rory Markas & Gubby. For whatever reason Phyz & Rex just don’t have any chemistry. They’re both fine people but together it’s hard to watch. I think mostly it has to do with Rex. He has tremendous enthusiasm, in fact sometimes he makes me and the wife laugh out loud but… he just doesn’t work well with Phyz. There’s nothing worse than when you make a joke and then have to explain it to the person you told it to. Thats Phyz 10 times a night explaining the joke to Rex. My other beef with Rex is half the time what he says is flat out wrong. It’s amazing how many ex-big leaguers know very little about the game. Rex knows zero about hitting and even less about pitching. It took him 5 years to finally learn the rule on a check swing. There’s no such thing as the bat going across the plate. What the umpire is looking for is whether the hitter attempted to hit the ball. It’s litle stuff like that that drives me crazy every night.
Rory and Gubby just have much better chemistry. Rex is much better suited for the PR department
Jake, no problem with personal preference. I think the issue in this thread was people being unncessarily “cruel” about their preference, as Earl put it.
The “chemistry” between Rory and Guby to me seems forced, but maybe that’s just because I know Rex and Phyz have been together so long and they’re genuine friends. Rory has evolved into an excellent broadcaster, a good story teller in the Vin Scully / Dick Enberg tradition. Guby knows the game, and that’s his job. Rex and Phyz just seem more comfortable to me.
I watched Friday night’s game on the Yankees telecast. It was Ken Singleton and John Flaherty, two ex-ballplayers. Neither was a career play-by-play man. They weren’t polished and they seemed forced together. I really wasn’t impressed. They know the game, of course, but that doesn’t make for good story telling.
They did spend a lot of time on Rex, though. They showed him throughout the game, and talked about what a nice man he is.
I used to like listening to the Hud Dog when the Angels were really bad. He cheered things up a bit. Now I get annoyed listening to him on the telecasts. It’s too much. I wouldn’t mind listening to someone a bit more eloquent and professional.
I don’t know how the Phyz-Hudler debate got transferred to this post about Reagins vs. Moneyball, but …
Jake, Stephen, Mark: It is entirely possible that different folks would like Phyz and Rex, and others would like Rory and Gubby, and others still would like none of them. It’s a matter of taste.
For example I preferred chocolate milk shakes my entire life until I hit 40, and for no conscious reason switched to vanilla. Now I can’t drink either …
And I will defend anyone’s right to say almost anything about anybody, as long as its not overly cruel, too personal or offensive in choice of language … but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with anybody.
It got transferred because I wrote the post at 10 PM EDT when I really should have been sawing logs in bed … :-)
I don’t think the discussion was about freedom of speech. I was just pointing that I don’t think the problem with the “übercritics” (thanks for the opportunity to be the first person to use an umlaut in this blog) is that they’re spoiled. My theory is they’re jealous.
As you said, why do they need to be cruel? I think it’s because of the anonymity of the Internet.
I’ve been running web sites, chat forums, etc. going back to the mid-1980s when this technology was very primitive. It’s amazing what people will say and do when they know they’re beyond a punch in the nose.
You and the other scribes understand and respect the importance of the written word. I think that’s what separates professional journalists like you from the fan sites. They use this technology to bay at the moon.
I think this Angels Blog is great, and it looks like your writers do too. But when you started it, I knew it was only a matter of time before the dark side of the Internet manifested itself. You guys unleashed a great sports psychology experiment, although perhaps you didn’t know it at the time. Hopefully at season’s end you and the other writers will post your thoughts about this blog and whether it turned out as you suspected.
And to veer this thread back on course … Here’s not overlooked the most ballyhooed of Billy Beane trades, the one directly tied to “Moneyball.”
The book alleges that Beane railed at his scouts for drafting Jeremy Bonderman in June 2001 because he felt the A’s should never draft a high school pitcher in the first round, the risk was too high. (Beane denies this.)
MLB rules prohibit trading a draftee until one year after he’s signed. Exactly one year later, Beane traded Bonderman to Detroit in a three-way deal. To quote Wiki:
“On July 6, 2002, Bonderman was involved in a three team deal. The Athletics had sent Carlos Peña, a player to be named later (who later became Bonderman), and Franklyn Germán to the Detroit Tigers. The New York Yankees sent Ted Lilly, John-Ford Griffin, and Jason Arnold to the Athletics. The Tigers sent Jeff Weaver to the Yankees and cash to the Athletics.”
Bonderman has been a fairly successful (although occasionally injured) pitcher for the Tigers. Peña landed in Tampa Bay, where he’s now a star first baseman for the Rays.
The A’s got some mileage out of Lilly but traded him in November 2003 for Bobby Kielty, your basic fourth outfielder.
I think it could be argued they were better off with Bonderman and Pena.
Where is the umlaut, anyway? I need to find it in case I write about the Bruno movie.
Imagine the team the A’s would have now if Beane just kept what he had and stopped trading for 4th outfielders with OBP’s. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the guy has no clue what he’s doing.
Earl by the way, the only shake is an Oreo Cookie shake from Jack in the box
Stephen, Jake: As I said in an earlier comment, the possibilities are endless if you break down the A’s trades this past decade.
It does appear Billy Beane has lost his touch evaluating young talent. He has been much more successful making trades for veterans to bolster the team (eg., Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon, Ray Durham) than he has at trading expensive veterans for prospects.
The one thing to say in his defense is that he pretty much has to trade a guy before he makes major dollars as his payroll is a fraction of the Angels’. The A’s can’t afford to make the Gary Matthews Jr.-sized mistakes.
Mark, how’s about his trade for Jason Kendall? Beane sent Arthur Rhodes, Mark Redman and cash. His Oakland salary during those three years:
2005 Oakland Athletics $10,571,429
2006 Oakland Athletics $11,492,454
2007 Oakland Athletics $12,858,194
Kendall was a poor hitter and runners could pretty much steal on him at will. Yet Beane traded for him knowing he had that big fat contract.
He also chose invest in keeping Eric Chavez, who’s been afflicted by injuries the last three years … Now, nothing unique about that, but the “Moneyball” crowd choose to overlook when Beane does this, yet they’ll point to the Angels letting go Troy Glaus in favor of Dallas McPherson refuse to acknowledge that Dallas’ career washed out due to a bad back.
I’m pretty sure the Pirates paid a big chunk of Kendall’s contract, but I don’t recall the details.
The problem with this whole debate is that the A’s, along with a few other clubs, make so many trades, you can always find examples of master heists and embarrassing gaffes.
Okay Mark just for laughs, give 3 examples of “master heists” by Beane in the last… say 5 years.
The whole point of “Moneyball” is that Beane was so smart, he could get the A’s to the playoffs without big salaries. Minnesota, Florida and Tampa Bay also have proved that point. Of course, when Boston overcame a 2-0 lead in ‘04 and beat them in the DS, Beane told a SF columnist, hey, whaddaya expect, their payroll is a lot higher. Can’t have it both ways.
But Michael Lewis misrepresented Beane, who is a smart guy and not as didactic as Lewis made him sound.
Moneyball also ignored the 3 reasons why Oakland was good _ Hudson, Mulder, Zito. Beane made a good Mulder deal, a hideous Hudson deal, and Zito became FA. I do think Oakland’s young pitchers will be quite good.
By the way, Earl, you were healthier with the chocolate milkshakes.
And Stephen’s analysis of the dark side of the Internet is right on. He’s too sane to be on this site.
OK Jake,
How about Mario Encarnacion, Jose Ortiz and a PTBNL for Jermaine Dye?
Or Ben Grieve and A.J. Hinch for Johnny Damon and Cory Lidle?
Or Mark Mulder for Dan Haren, Kiko Calero and Daric Barton?
I’m sorry Mark, I assumed you’d be dealing with trades that occurred sometime in the 21st century. Mulder for Haren was a GREAT trade. It was also the last good trade he has made. He gave away a good starting staff (Haren, Harden, & Blanton) and got absolutely nothing in return. He has destroyed that team and they are not gonna be good anytime soon. Their young pitchers just aren’t that good, with the exception of their new closer Andrew Bailey, who by the way, did not come in a trade.
We’ll see what he got for Blanton. The Outman kid might be able to pitch and the Cardenas kid might be their next SS.
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/03/20062008_payrol.php
In the link above, Lederer looks at the payroll efficiency of all teams from 06-08. The Angels have done extremely well, averageing over 94 wins a year. But Oakland has also done well with over 81 wins a year. Part of Lederer’s conclusion is that “marginal wins are significantly more costly than average wins. In other words, going from 70 to 80 wins isn’t as important — or costly — as going from 80 to 90 wins.”
The Angels ability to spend on average $114 million a year allows them to buy the marginal wins that the A’s can’t afford with their $68 million per year payroll. The fact that Beane was able to average 81 wins a year is a real credit to the front office.
Obviously this year the A’s are in the tank. But I don’t think that 86 games of negative results erase 10 years of positive ones.
Jason,
Thanks for that post. It’s my point exactly. The Angels and A’s are working under entirely different constraints, just as the Angels and Yankees are.
And to Mark Whicker: I was there when Beane used payroll as an excuse after losing that playoff game to Boston. He was trying to distract the media from Miguel Tejada tearfully criticizing Derek Lowe for his WWF-groin-point gesture after recording the save. But it really seemed pathetic at the time to keep trotting out the payroll line.
My thing with Billy is this: I’d like to see what he could do if he had $100 million-plus to spend. It’s probably not as easy as everyone thinks and it takes away your excuse for losing.