Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

trueblueblood

do we have a "moneyball" type team?

53 posts in this topic

Well yeah... baseball is definitely different. Im just saying, the concept is similar. When you have a good GM and scouts, you can find good players for cheap

That similar concept is ok, But HOW you find those cheap players is the difference. The true moneyball concept is all about numbers... sabermetrics to be more specific. {Coined by Bill James, from Society for Baseball Research; SABR. Where Saber in sabermetrics comes from). These determine the performance attributes that statistically prove to be most valuable, but maybe subjectively (by scouts, coaches, mgr's and GM's) less important. Thus you can buy the more important statistical player cheaper on the open market, thus compete with a lower payroll. The number of games and vast number of metrics in baseball make these quite educated calculations worth putting together a lineup and even managing by them. There are less injuries, especially season ending, in baseball to dirty the stats. Emotion also seems to play less a role in baseball, so statistics rule even more.

I'm sure there is someone working on a good set of saferrmetric's (except I made it up, I don't think there is a Society for American Football Research, I think there is a Professional Football Researchers Association though) to statistically evaluate and predict on field in season play. But the fewer number of games and the large amount of player injuries spanning over a greater portion of the season will dirty any reasonable number evaluation.

So really it is just better scouting and playing good hunches. These are always good things to have anyway. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IND_The Catch_728x90
In any case, we brought in a handful of undervalued guys that have fairly good boom or bust potential. And right now, most of them seem to be either somewhere above the middle of boom/bust, and some are closer to boom (Redding).

I don't think any of them really have bust potential, because we didn't pay very much for anyone we brought over. We didn't give anything up to add them, we didn't blow a draft pick on them, etc. If they don't work out for whatever reason, we can just move on.

I was really excited about Samson Satele, but he hasn't been all that great so far. Between the injuries and his play, that move just hasn't been that much of a positive, and you could even say that his backup has played better than him. I still wouldn't call that move a bust. If he just doesn't work out this season, we could release him, accelerate his entire prorated bonus into the 2012 cap, and be done with him entirely. Same thing for any other player we signed this offseason.

That's just my opinion. I'm much more conservative in my use of the word "bust" that most people are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of them really have bust potential, because we didn't pay very much for anyone we brought over. We didn't give anything up to add them, we didn't blow a draft pick on them, etc. If they don't work out for whatever reason, we can just move on.

I was really excited about Samson Satele, but he hasn't been all that great so far. Between the injuries and his play, that move just hasn't been that much of a positive, and you could even say that his backup has played better than him. I still wouldn't call that move a bust. If he just doesn't work out this season, we could release him, accelerate his entire prorated bonus into the 2012 cap, and be done with him entirely. Same thing for any other player we signed this offseason.

That's just my opinion. I'm much more conservative in my use of the word "bust" that most people are.

Very, very true. I was just trying to relate on the common boom/bust scale (money/draft pick status aside). The reality is, most of they guys we picked up were either role players, or players with oodles of potential or physical characteristics that just have a hard time sticking around (Avery). To me, Redding is the lone guy that "boomed." Everyone else seems to be adequate and a slight upgrade over their predecessor. As it was last season, we had a lot of green guys who were better off as depth, but were required to start. Now we have a lot of role players who can start or sit, but have enough experience to not hurt us too badly on the field.

Any hoo, most of our guys are smack dab between boom and bust. They aren't world beaters, but they're adequate. Over the years, we should be able to find some upgrades, but they are doing enough for us now to keep us in games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the Colts aren't like the Oakland A's or any other Sabermetrics team. Sabermetrics are a cute story, have meant a division title or wild card run every now and then, but not one championship, no sustained success. Money, payroll, wins in baseball. And pitching in October. So the comparison to me would not be the Orioles (they had no-name pitchers), but the Giants. Luck is any of the young gun arms of the Giants. Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, and Posey were all first round picks of the Giants - so they drafted well, a rarity in baseball. Grigson appears to be one for one too, although there is a lot of football left this year, not to mention in the careers of the Colts players picked this season. I do get the point though - a lot of youth, a mix of some vets who didn't have a home anywhere else, and the couple 'stars' who make up the Colts roster do have a more us against them, team that overcomes, kind of feel.

Theo Epstein, Bill James, and the 2004 - 2007 Red Sox beg to differ. And, almost all NL and AL teams user sabermetrics these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We kind of have a team like this years A's not a lot of big names yet winning games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Colts team is not at all a Money Ball team! The success of Luck and leadership of Wayne have just clicked much better than we thought they would! We are a young team, lets keep developing and adding support for Luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theo Epstein, Bill James, and the 2004 - 2007 Red Sox beg to differ. And, almost all NL and AL teams user sabermetrics these days.

2004 - 2007, not to mention 2008, the Red Sox ranked second only to the Yankees in payroll. Bill James was the king of numbers, stats, so I shouldn't have dumped sabermetrics into the discussion, you are right. But the Red Sox and $180 million dollars a year were in no way doing what the A's and all other small market teams have had to do. The A's were the point, Moneyball, and I should have remained specific to them and Beane. And lets see what Theo does in Chicago, without those Red Sox pitchers from those years, without the middle of the lineup hitters (Manny was considered amongst the greatest right handed hitters of all time at his peak, if you believe Gammons, a homer if there ever was one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of them really have bust potential, because we didn't pay very much for anyone we brought over. We didn't give anything up to add them, we didn't blow a draft pick on them, etc. If they don't work out for whatever reason, we can just move on.

I was really excited about Samson Satele, but he hasn't been all that great so far. Between the injuries and his play, that move just hasn't been that much of a positive, and you could even say that his backup has played better than him. I still wouldn't call that move a bust. If he just doesn't work out this season, we could release him, accelerate his entire prorated bonus into the 2012 cap, and be done with him entirely. Same thing for any other player we signed this offseason.

That's just my opinion. I'm much more conservative in my use of the word "bust" that most people are.

Nice post.

Terms like "Bust" is a horribly overused word.

So is "Choke".... unfortunately, fans toss around these words casually and indiscriminately... way too much in my opinion....

But, such is the world we live in these days....

Oh well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2004 - 2007, not to mention 2008, the Red Sox ranked second only to the Yankees in payroll. Bill James was the king of numbers, stats, so I shouldn't have dumped sabermetrics into the discussion, you are right. But the Red Sox and $180 million dollars a year were in no way doing what the A's and all other small market teams have had to do. The A's were the point, Moneyball, and I should have remained specific to them and Beane. And lets see what Theo does in Chicago, without those Red Sox pitchers from those years, without the middle of the lineup hitters (Manny was considered amongst the greatest right handed hitters of all time at his peak, if you believe Gammons, a homer if there ever was one).

Sabermetrics doesn't replace scouting, or even paying if the player you want costs on the open market. The numbers just give understanding and potential to get desired #'s at reduced costs. The money teams use it now too. I received a list of teams that use and others that don't use sabermetrics some time back-

Highly Analytical Organizations

Oakland Athletics

Houston Astros

Toronto Blue Jays

Chicago Cubs

Arizona Diamondbacks

Cleveland Indians

Seattle Mariners

New York Mets

San Diego Padres

Pittsburgh Pirates*

Texas Rangers*

Tampa Bay Rays

Boston Red Sox

New York Yankees

In Between Organizations

Milwaukee Brewers

St. Louis Cardinals*

Toronto Blue Jays

Philadelphia Phillies

Cincinnati Reds

Chicago White Sox

Old School

Los Angeles Angels

Atlanta Braves*

Los Angeles Dodgers

Baltimore Orioles

San Francisco Giants

Miami Marlins

Washington Nationals

Colorado Rockies

Kansas City Royals

Detroit Tigers

Minnesota Twins

Colts are clicking like a moneyball team before the big spenders jumped on board though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of our team when I watched that movie. I don't know how people couldn't draw a parallel. We have been severely handicapped by previous contracts, so we had to find 'moneyball' type players. Guys like Avery, Zbikowski, Shipley, McGlynn, etc....low contracts where you get more bang for your buck. Even Redding and Wayne, although they were a little more expensive, would be classified as 'moneyball' contracts. Luckily we have a true scout for a GM. A guy that is not gonna pride himself on making his guys the highest paid at their respective position just because they fit our scheme. A guy that puts in his time in the film room to constantly improve the team by whatever means necessary. A guy that will not stay stagnant, content to just let his spectacular QB carry a very mediocre team. Yeah, I'm still bitter over Polian's poor GMing and authoritarian nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabermetrics doesn't replace acouting, or even paying if the player you want costs on the open market. The numbers just give understanding and potential to get desired #'s at reduced costs. I received a list of teams that use and others that don't use sabermetrics some time back-

At the risk of taking this way, way off track, at least away from Moneyball and the Colts, here is a quote from Moneyball, from a Forbes article: "At the bottom of the Oakland experiment was a willingness to rethink baseball: how it was managed, how it is played, who is best suited to play it, and why. Understanding that he would never have a Yankee checkbook, the Oakland A’s general manager, Billy Beane, had set about looking for inefficiencies in the game." Moneyball was aboout, well, money, and how to find talent, rethink baseball without money. I do not disagree with you that Sabermetrics, any new statistical approach doesn't necessarily mean accounting. But Moneyball absolutely did revolve around money, and a small market teams. Again, I didn't mean to knock Sabermetrics, or make it seem as if money was it's focus. Money still is an enormous factor in MLB, and the A's use of Sabermetrics is directly related to ownership pocketbooks was where I meant to head.

Many teams using new statistical analysis find success. Not necessarily sustained excellence and championships. But money, retaining talent found, and adding pieces in July and later, still rule baseball. Giants two out of three. Yankees I bet sell October tickets at spring training. Tigers and Giants in the top 9 in payroll this year. The A's can't resign Giambi, Tejada, so many others, any pitcher ever. They make the playoffs a lot for their youth and lack of payroll. But Beane has no ring there. I don't disagree at all with the vlaue of Sabermetircs, or any of the 'new school' ways of approaching identifying talent. I live in the SF Bay Area, so I see the Giants and A's all the time. The A's are a great story. The Giants, within view across the bay, have two rings in Beane's time there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your position. Producing p[layers want big money, and deep pockets organizations want the wins. The connection is there. I live in Fort Myers and my 10 y/o son is a Red Sox fan, but I favor the Rays. The Rays have used moneyball technique to compete vs. the Red Sox and Yankees with great success over the last few seasons. But since they too use those numbers, it goes more back to scouting and managing again. A couple more cheap bats that produce decent and i think they can make another run at the pennant. My NL team, Reds, doing well too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabermetrics doesn't replace scouting

It's entirely dependent upon scouting. But scouting is more than just watching someone play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Cam's Gold MVP Cleats
      Sorry for getting off topic but it was a convo NFL and I were having earlier.
    • Taylor Decker or Jack Conklin?
      I guess I might be in the minority here based on the posts above, but I personally prefer Decker over Conklin. I believe Conklin gets caught putting his weight forward too often, and doesn't use the full extension of his arms to hold defenders at a distance. He also tends to lunge more than you would like. Also based off mobility and the likelihood that we switch to a zone blocking scheme I believe that Decker is the better athlete to fit in a ZBS.   I like both players, and both could play in a zone or power blocking scheme. I just believe IMO that Decker is more polished than Conklin at the moment.   I have watched several snaps of Conklin where he gets caught doing this often which bothers me. Deforest Buckner absolutely destroys him on this snap. Just a side note. If any of you are interested in learning more about O-Line play, and have twitter I highly recommend following Duke Manyweather.
    • Cam's Gold MVP Cleats
      Not to rehash bad memories because my intentions are good here, regarding the 1998 Team I would definitely rank them the best of all-time out of the franchises that haven't won a SB. The 1990 Bills are a close 2nd IMO and that core did go to 4 SB's in a row but that Vikings Offense was lethal with Moss, Carter, Reed, and Smith. Cunningham was amazing in his old age too. They had a Great O.Line too and a Great Pass Rush on Defense. John Randle was a monster! The 1981 Chargers are 3rd best IMO with Fouts, Winslow and crew, then the 1988 Bengals 4th. They had a special on the NFL Network a while back regarding who the best franchises not to win a SB and picked their best team. That 1998 Vikings was in the Top 5, I rank them #1.
    • Broncos just showed why Colts have to draft all Defense in draft...
      No, he's not a three down back, IMO. He's Reggie Bush. I think trying to run him up the middle and giving him 20+ carries a game would be a mistake. He's a weapon, but he has to be fired skillfully. 
    • Colts expected to release Andre Johnson and Trent Cole
      The Cleveland Browns maybe would do something that foolish but nobody else.    So yes, no stable NFL franchise ever would pull the trigger on that outlandish deal. I agree 100%
  • Topics

  • Members

  • Blog Entries

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.