MICHAEL LEWIS'S WAR ON LOGIC
"I've got the Rangers (85-67) edging the Mariners (84-68) for second place." Rob Neyer's forecast for the 2001 AL West
Michael Lewis managed to do something with his hands besides stroke Billy Beane to satisfaction, and the results of that are in the newest 'Sports Illustrated,' the March 1, 2004 edition.
First off, this jagoff is so wildly self-important he makes Norma Desmond look pious. He honestly believes that he chronicled a revolution. Ummmm, you didn't, pal. You convinced some of us that you had a teeny-bopper crush on Beane, and you wrote a bunch of lies, but that's about it.
The SI artilcle begins, "A religious war is taking place in baseball." Hey, relax, chief, you're talking about statisticians following ballplayers. I think the term "religious war" might be overstating things, alright?
Lewis quickly threatens anybody who dissents from any of his views by accusing them of being in "The Club." Those who dare to cheer for teams that actually advance beyond the first round of the playoffs are Creationists. (Postseason failure is good!!!) Now, I don't think that there actually are any Creationists anymore, but these guys have identities that are dependant on manufacturing enemies.
He wastes little time in getting his first fact wrong, in just the 3rd paragraph of his article he says, "I published a book, Moneyball...." Old Timer? You didn't publish jack shit. You wrote it, but W.W. Norton Co. published it, alright?
Apparently, J.P. Ricciardi is actually a spy in the Yankee organization, because Lewis quotes Ricciardi saying that Steinbrenner overreacted to an error (Steinbrenner has undoubtedly seen tens-of-thousands of errors over the past 30 years) by an outfielder and then telling them to "buy" Raul Modesi. If this is true, and the Yanks wanted to buy Mondesi....then how come Toronto paid virtually his entire salary when he was traded?
Anyway, I think it's ridiculous that Steinbrenner thinks he knows about baseball. Where does he get the nerve?
So Beane is an ace at assembling his roster, eh? Didn't you guys find it amazing that somebody managed to write an entire book about the A's without mentioning Hudson, Zito, or Mulder?
The Oakland A's numbers independent of their starting pitching.
Offense's OPS ranking (Average rank is 7th out of 14)
2001: 5th out of 14
2002: 8th out of 14
2003: 9th out of 14
Bullpen's OPS Allowed rankings (Average rank is 5th out of 14)
2001: 3rd out of 14
2002: 7th out of 14
2003: 5th out of 14
(And don't forget that Giambi and Tejada were the major reason for the A's offense not being downright awful, and they were both drafted before Beane got there.) Now those two categories - offense and the bullpen - are accountable for about 2/3 of a ballclub, (50% for offense, 16% for the bullpen). That leaves only starting pitching as a factor, and, of course, the A's starting pitching has indeed been the factor that has seperated themselves from the group.
Starting Pitching OPS Allowed rankings (Average rank is 1st out of 14)
2001: 1st out of 14
2002: 2nd out of 14
2003: 1st out of 14
Now, can we just stipulate that the A's pitching staff has been the primary source of their winning? Does this not satisfy that point? Thank you.
Okay....the reason the A's pitching staff has been good is because of their vaunted Big Three - Hudson, Zito, and Mulder. Now, Beane has always been worthy of respect because all three of these guys were drafted under his watch, so he deserves the credit for their success, right? Wrong.
Here is the real reason Oakland assistant GM and object of Michael Lewis' wet dreams Paul DePodesta's speech was removed from the web:
"It wasn't until 2002 that we....went after our scouting system."
In other words, those grizzled Jack Palance's were the guys to credit for the drafting of the Big Three, not Beane. (I'll go ahead and say that I think that, with all the scouting services available nowadays, nobody really deserves credit for an individual draft.)
So, the Oakand offense and bullpen have both been mediocre, and the one part of the team that's exceptional, the pitching, is somebody else's achievement.
Anyway, who gives a shit.
Michael Lewis managed to do something with his hands besides stroke Billy Beane to satisfaction, and the results of that are in the newest 'Sports Illustrated,' the March 1, 2004 edition.
First off, this jagoff is so wildly self-important he makes Norma Desmond look pious. He honestly believes that he chronicled a revolution. Ummmm, you didn't, pal. You convinced some of us that you had a teeny-bopper crush on Beane, and you wrote a bunch of lies, but that's about it.
The SI artilcle begins, "A religious war is taking place in baseball." Hey, relax, chief, you're talking about statisticians following ballplayers. I think the term "religious war" might be overstating things, alright?
Lewis quickly threatens anybody who dissents from any of his views by accusing them of being in "The Club." Those who dare to cheer for teams that actually advance beyond the first round of the playoffs are Creationists. (Postseason failure is good!!!) Now, I don't think that there actually are any Creationists anymore, but these guys have identities that are dependant on manufacturing enemies.
He wastes little time in getting his first fact wrong, in just the 3rd paragraph of his article he says, "I published a book, Moneyball...." Old Timer? You didn't publish jack shit. You wrote it, but W.W. Norton Co. published it, alright?
Apparently, J.P. Ricciardi is actually a spy in the Yankee organization, because Lewis quotes Ricciardi saying that Steinbrenner overreacted to an error (Steinbrenner has undoubtedly seen tens-of-thousands of errors over the past 30 years) by an outfielder and then telling them to "buy" Raul Modesi. If this is true, and the Yanks wanted to buy Mondesi....then how come Toronto paid virtually his entire salary when he was traded?
Anyway, I think it's ridiculous that Steinbrenner thinks he knows about baseball. Where does he get the nerve?
So Beane is an ace at assembling his roster, eh? Didn't you guys find it amazing that somebody managed to write an entire book about the A's without mentioning Hudson, Zito, or Mulder?
The Oakland A's numbers independent of their starting pitching.
Offense's OPS ranking (Average rank is 7th out of 14)
2001: 5th out of 14
2002: 8th out of 14
2003: 9th out of 14
Bullpen's OPS Allowed rankings (Average rank is 5th out of 14)
2001: 3rd out of 14
2002: 7th out of 14
2003: 5th out of 14
(And don't forget that Giambi and Tejada were the major reason for the A's offense not being downright awful, and they were both drafted before Beane got there.) Now those two categories - offense and the bullpen - are accountable for about 2/3 of a ballclub, (50% for offense, 16% for the bullpen). That leaves only starting pitching as a factor, and, of course, the A's starting pitching has indeed been the factor that has seperated themselves from the group.
Starting Pitching OPS Allowed rankings (Average rank is 1st out of 14)
2001: 1st out of 14
2002: 2nd out of 14
2003: 1st out of 14
Now, can we just stipulate that the A's pitching staff has been the primary source of their winning? Does this not satisfy that point? Thank you.
Okay....the reason the A's pitching staff has been good is because of their vaunted Big Three - Hudson, Zito, and Mulder. Now, Beane has always been worthy of respect because all three of these guys were drafted under his watch, so he deserves the credit for their success, right? Wrong.
Here is the real reason Oakland assistant GM and object of Michael Lewis' wet dreams Paul DePodesta's speech was removed from the web:
"It wasn't until 2002 that we....went after our scouting system."
In other words, those grizzled Jack Palance's were the guys to credit for the drafting of the Big Three, not Beane. (I'll go ahead and say that I think that, with all the scouting services available nowadays, nobody really deserves credit for an individual draft.)
So, the Oakand offense and bullpen have both been mediocre, and the one part of the team that's exceptional, the pitching, is somebody else's achievement.
Anyway, who gives a shit.
<< Home