If a team wins, they wanted to win real bad and made all the right moves and are geniuses.
If a team loses, they didn’t care about winning and made all the wrong moves on purpose and are lazy, stupid, or diabolical.
I’ll write this down.
Irrelevant. And how should I know? Before he even puts his team together, he’s defined success for himself and his team as winning the division. Period. They should just have a parade through Oakland the day they clinch. That’s not success for most GMs. That’s step 1.
Maybe if he put his delicate statistical genius to work putting together a team that can win a series in the post season, he wouldn’t have to resort to excuses. He’s gifted, I get it. He’s put his low-budget team into the playoffs a lot. But he doesn’t get to re-define success for a Major League team in order to excuse his inability to take it to the next step. He’s obviously overcome *huge *odds for success in the regular season. Apparently he either can not or chooses not to do so in the post season. That’s failure, not success, unless you’re Billy Beane. Then you’ve got people bending over backward to make excuses for you because of your system.
And if you’re Billy Beane, you win even when you lose because he’s not responsible for his team after game 162!
If only Billy Beane would think hard enough and hope and clap his hands, he would have won those games!
But stats *don’t work *on such small databases, we keep hearing. That’s what it’s all about. Once you’re outside the realm of stats, nothing is definable and nothing matters. It’s all fucking luck, remember?
Meanwhile, the stodgy, tradition-bound teams, ones that know the whole and not the sum of the parts, that know the intangibles, are actually winning.
It’s actually quite relevant. I’m pretty sure he’d spend more money and add more players if it were an option.
Step one is what the Astros and Marlins and some other teams are trying to get to. If you make the playoffs about every other year you’re quite a few steps beyond that.
Oh good- now we’re making fun of statistics.
Maybe I should have argued more vociferously against this, but I don’t think that’s what he’s doing. I think he was talking about the limits of what a GM can do. You put together the best team you can and if you did it right, it should work over the course of 162 games. When you’re playing best of five or best of seven it’s much hard to predict what will happen. It helps to have a dominant strikeout pitcher or two or some dominant bats, but the fewer games you play, the better chance a weaker team has. There’s a reason baseball just changed the way the playoffs work: the playoff teams that were supposed to be the weakest were winning a lot because the whole thing was just unpredictable. Over the time period we’re talking about (since 2001) there has not been a single repeat World Series champion. Two teams have made the Series in consecutive years - both very big market teams, by the way. I think that says something about the difficulty of building a team that consistently wins in the playoffs.
Or it doesn’t really work that way- especially when you’re starting with one of the tightest budgets in the sport.
I think this just officially went into the toilet, but what whole and what intangibles are you talking about?
Happy… you seem to be drawing a great deal of insight into BB’s attitude toward and feelings about postseason wins from, to my knowledge, just two widely-quoted remarks comments during his sixteen-year MLB GM career–the “shit doesn’t work” and “fucking luck” comments, which I’ve interpreted as mostly expressing frustration with postseason losses.
Is there something else you’re looking at, that suggests to you that BB doesn’t really want to win it all?
While you take that remedial stats course, look up “confirmation bias.” Because you are holding the losses of the As against Moneyball but not holding the losses of other teams against “tradition.”
It isn’t about 162 games, even if that does make for a satisfyingly large amount of games that you can tell yourself constitute a valid data base and keeps you on comfortable ground. No, the regular season is solely about qualifying for, and then preparing for, the postseason. The games that matter, and that smart teams prepare for instead of calling them “fucking luck”. Nothing that happens in the regular season gets you a parade.
The rest of your post is about making excuses for a loser.
If you have to ask …
I would suggest that your infatuation with Moneyball is the confirmation bias on display here. The evidence of the actual results, with the A’s perpetually failing even by their own “fucking luck” standard, is not dismissible by ignorant snark.
Ah, so you get to call my points “silly,” but heaven forbid someone make a flip comment about stats and we get this as a response? Is this special power reserved for mods?
You can have your argument. I’ve never met anyone else get so offended in debates over sabermetrics. Remind me never to offend you in this way again, I’m sick of the intellectual dishonesty.
Yeah, Marley. You really don’t have to ask. Because you know that the answer will be “whatever that thing is that makes a team win.” And you can tell if a team has it because they won. But if they didn’t have it, they lost. And you can’t tell ahead of time if they have it because it’s like magic and heart and grit and scrappy white guys.
In traditional baseball, finishing in the “first division” (which usually meant the top four teams of an eight-team league) was considered a respectable year. Traditional managers, and fans, would have been disgusted with a player who spoke or played in such a way as to suggest that a late-season game between teams clearly not bound for the Series didn’t matter.
Dude, teams lose all the time! Was Boston using Moneyball last year? They sucked. If they were using the same system as this year, what explains the difference? How about the Giants? They won the World Series last year. Did they switch to Moneyball this year? Is that why they sucked? When you credit one thing with all of the successes but none of the failures, that’s confirmation bias. You are seeing only the successes as relevant when it’s the system you like but only the failures as relevant when it’s a system you want to mock.
Is that all you’ve got to contribute, jsgoddess? Just snark and butthurt?
There are greater things in heaven and earth, Horatio …
The fact that you don’t appear to understand statistics or confirmation bias doesn’t actually make them go away.
I’m not entirely sure what I’m supposed to be butthurt about, since I’m an Indian and Dodger fan. But sure. Whatever characterization helps you.
Actually, yes, there was a power struggle in the front office that let the Bill James faction take over, and put a manager who knew numbers but couldn’t manage in place. With no interest in the intangibles, yes, they sucked. The baseball-guy faction is now in charge, Ben Cherington is making the decisions instead of Larry Lucchino, and he put a *team *together. As a once-popular local talk show host used to say, “You’re *making *my point!”
I discredit the thing that has never worked. You’re desperate to find a way to credit it in *spite *of the evidence. Why should anyone credit you?
True, there was a time when winning the pennant meant everything, getting close was worth something, and the Series was just a nice bonus. Then came divisions and multiple rounds of playoffs etc., and now the pennant is just another round. No longer does anyone give much of a crap after the season about teams that didn’t even qualify, or about the season itself for that matter. *Traditional *baseball, as you call it, went the way of George Will’s childhood. *Modern *baseball is about October.
Okay, this is misleading at best. First, of all, as Elvis points out, he never said “guaranteed.” Second, let’s look at the actual numbers:
The odds of not winning *any *World Serieses in 7 attempts is about 39%, all things being equal. (7/8 raised to the seventh power.)
The odds of not *getting *to any World Serieses, given seven attempts, would be about 13%. (3/4 raised to the seventh power.) Would you really call that a “fairly likely” outcome? I wouldn’t. Is it incredibly unusual? No, but it isn’t “fairly likely” for any reasonable values of “fairly.”
And it actually gets worse.
*Since 1999 the A’s have appeared in eight playoff series. They have lost seven. Could that be a matter of luck? Sure it could. In my opinion, it probably is. But if everything is totally random, there’s only about a 3% chance of that happening.
*Since 1999 the A’s have played six decisive Game 5s. They have lost all of them. Could it be a matter of chance? Sure. Probably. But the odds of that are something like 1 ½ %.
*Since 1999 the A’s have played thirteen games in which a win would have moved them on to the next round. They lost twelve of those games. Coincidence? Could be. But all things equal and random, the odds are WELL under 1% of that happening.
(Yes, I know these’re not independent events. Just giving several different ways of understanding what’s going on.)
Anyway, the bottom line is that the A’s have done really, REALLY badly in the playoffs in the Billy Beane era, and I don’t think it’s especially helpful to try to sugarcoat it. So let’s at least pretend to use accurate numbers, okay?
(BTW, I didn’t run the figures for the Braves, but they’re in the same range over the same period of time…)
I’m quite happy to offer “remedial” probability support to anyone who wants it 
And the Giants?
Has every team that has sucked in the past 15 years been all up in the Moneyball madness those years, but when they’re good it’s when they were doing something else? Is that how it works?
As for crediting me? There’s nothing to credit me for. You’re saying stupid things. That’s all.
The Indians have done really really badly for the past 60 years. Boston did really really badly for decades before finally winning. Was it Moneyball that was holding them back? Did they just not want to win?