Sports

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

11. And not just that, but even under ideal circumstances

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 08:08 PM

Jan 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Highly recommend Moneyball [View all] Laura PourMeADrink Jan 2012 OP

Saber-metrics worked well for a season... trumad Jan 2012 #1

Only based on offense, right? Guess the assumption is Laura PourMeADrink Jan 2012 #2

The whole key is On base percentage. trumad Jan 2012 #3

right....I see it as successful in a perfect world where Laura PourMeADrink Jan 2012 #4

And not just that, but even under ideal circumstances hughee99 Jan 2012 #11

right... The best OBP the A's can put together is probably much lower than the big money Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2012 #14

Unbelievably, Pats giving 3 hughee99 Feb 2012 #15

Well, you can only keep beating good teams every time for so long Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2012 #16

A's are in the same boat as Cleveland Auggie Jan 2012 #5

The advantage the A's found JonLP24 Jan 2012 #7

Exactly! -eom- HuckleB Jan 2012 #12

Other teams started using it to snatch up good players PVnRT Feb 2012 #29

As more MLB teams get wise to this method of evaluating talent hughee99 Jan 2012 #6

I don't always agree JonLP24 Jan 2012 #8

I feel the same about you. n/t hughee99 Jan 2012 #10

I assume it's on video now? nt joeybee12 Jan 2012 #9

not sure...saw it On Demand on cable. nt Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2012 #17

Took me 4 months to get Bridesmaids from the library... joeybee12 Feb 2012 #18

Ok ! Bridesmaids was unexpectedly very funny to me nt Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2012 #19

I have to say it was a letdown...entertaining and funny... joeybee12 Feb 2012 #20

Horrible movie... trumad Feb 2012 #21

It was not... joeybee12 Feb 2012 #22

Really? Not even Melissa McCarthy? nt Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2012 #23

She made that movie...nt joeybee12 Feb 2012 #24

They were simply trying to one up the Hang over movie... trumad Feb 2012 #25

I agree partly...more brisdesmaids, less Kristin Wiig... joeybee12 Feb 2012 #26

You think Bridesmaids was better than the Hangover...? trumad Feb 2012 #27

Staring at the lint in my navel is better than Hangover... joeybee12 Feb 2012 #28

Alright---you asked for it. trumad Feb 2012 #30

Slacker! joeybee12 Feb 2012 #31

See 31...responded to the wrong post! nt joeybee12 Feb 2012 #32

Everyone is missing the point. El Supremo Jan 2012 #13

Great film, though Art Howe isn't such a jerk Auggie Feb 2012 #33