Sports
Related: About this forumHighly recommend Moneyball
Great movie about the Oakland A's and the scientific method
for building a baseball team
Loved it.
trumad
(41,692 posts)and certainly has merit...but... in 2011, the Oakland A's were 74-88.
terrific movie though.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)you can train defense. Stuck me though you would have to factor
age in too.
trumad
(41,692 posts)I get the concept and it certainly has merit.... but if you look at the A's season records since, I'd have to conclude it isn't as successful as the movie implies it to be.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)nothing changes. No one's OBP ever starts a permanent decline. No new pitchers join the mix.
No one gets hurt. Factors that cause mutation. And, you can't keep restaffing every day -
there's a natural need to put in the hours/games a a team. You are always going to have
days when your players are having those down times when they aren't achieving
their avg OBP. If the majority doesn't, you lose.
All that said, I love baseball and thought the whole idea was very thought provoking.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)it just means that the A's would get more "bang for the buck" than other teams, it doesn't necessarily mean they would get enough to win it all. The guys with the highest OBP's last year were guys that had good everything (Cabrera, Batista, Votto, Fielder, Berkman, Adrian Gonzalez, Matt Kemp, Ortiz and Braun) and were priced out of the A's market. The A's are still relegated to looking at just the stats of the best players they can afford.
The system allows for the A's to be more competitive than other teams looking at similar players, but doesn't necessarily translate into an overriding advantage over big market teams, especially teams that can financially "afford to be wrong" on player evaluation.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)OBP average. Good point
Good luck this weekend (not really :>
What's the spread?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The Pats have played 2 quality opponents in the last 2 months while the Giants have had to play some very tough opponents to get here. I was very surprised to see the Pats favored at all.
I hope you enjoy the game, even if you don't like the final score
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)before the spell breaks. Hope my team has one more in them.
I grew up half way between NYC and Boston. So you had
to love one and hate the other. Our family went the
Yankees/Giants route. But half the town went the other
way - Red Sox/Patriots.
Auggie
(31,189 posts)Small markets with owners of limited financial means. It's hard to put it all together when you have to recycle the roster every few years.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)was simply finding players that were undervalued by other teams. Once teams took notice they started offering players with higher OBP w/ bigger salaries. It is the natural order of things, next time someone finds an inside advantage in any sport, it will quickly disappear.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)PVnRT
(13,178 posts)The Oakland A's succeeded for a while because they found good players for rock-bottom prices. With everyone throwing money at sabremetric-approved players now, you can't be cheap and win. That's Oakland's problem.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It becomes harder and harder for the A's to find these "hidden gems" that allow them to compete. Other teams are now looking at OBP and OPS and putting less stock batting average and certainly in stolen bases. The A's were able to take advantage because they were ahead of the curve in looking at some of these stats, but as other teams begin to use them, they end up tied to the same payroll disadvantage they had before. Teams still overvalue saves which is why the A's continue to build up closers and then get rid of them when there's market demand.
I didn't see the movie yet, but loved the book.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but I feel that me and you are often on the same page.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)I will put Moneyball on hold and come July tell you what I thought of it!!!
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)But I guess I was expecting gut-wrenching funny from what I had heard about it.
trumad
(41,692 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Not great or what I thought it would be, but definitely not horrible...especially not horrible like anything Meryl Streep is in.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)One funny part--- the shitting scene and that was it.
The main character was the most self-absorbed me me me character I've seen in a while.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)She was very unappealing.
As for Habgover...God, now THAT was an awful movie.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Don't make me call you a Douche.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)God-awful movie.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Douche
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)It doesn't have the same effect without the "bag"!!!!
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)El Supremo
(20,365 posts)It's a really good baseball movie.
Auggie
(31,189 posts)Just saw it. Howe, apparently, is quite irate in how he was portrayed by Philip Seymore Hoffman. I believe he bought into Beane's approach 100%
Another aspect of the book, not mentioned in the movie, was how small clubs targeted Latin American players early on, often signing 10 to 15 prospects for the price of one U.S. college prospect. Ciubs like Cleveland also directed more money in developmental and cultural training and better hygienic practices of these signees, including medical care.