2012 MLB Regular Season Running Thread

I understand that's the point. But in practical application, there was no defense that was going to be shitty enough to dissuade them from taking a mildly helpful offensive player. Long is a perfect example of that, as is Jeremy Giambi.

They didn't care about defense. They really didn't.

 

So because one team that you watched for awhile decided to go with one particular route to team-building, that proves that the whole of statheadery used to decide that defense had no value?

 

We will have to take your word for it, since no team has ever started on a 100-game winning streak and 80-90 percent of playoff bids are determined in the season's final week.

 

It wasn't one team I watched for a while. It was the team that created the revolution.

I will have to check my copy but I could swear Moneyball devoted a large chunk of text to just how little defense mattered.

 

Michael Lewis is a great storyteller, but stop believing everything he tells you.

 

I see. So now we are moving from "you're wrong, that's not what the book is about" to "well maybe that was in the book but that didn't matter to the really smart people."

 

You don't think teams feel pressure to win in every month of the season?

 

I voted for Trout a month ago and I'm not changing that opinion. It's a poor precedent, but Triple Crown winners have not won the MVP for various reasons, and the voters don't have to give it to Cabrera just because he could be the first to do it in 45 years.

 

No. They feel pressure to stay afloat. And you can see it in the way they work young players into the lineup or the rotation/bullpen, and also the way they handle bullpens that have been taxed the prior two nights.

I would guess that every team sets a goal of being within a game or two of a playoff spot Sept. 1 and rolling the dice from there. Players take more time off (day game after night game), pitch counts are more strictly limited, etc. And then if you're in contention Sept. 1, it's go time.

 

No. You are wrong on all the levels. But I don't mind moving around on which ones I'm explaining to you why you were wrong.

 

Fair enough. Happily wrong. But just for clarification, is it that the book didn't dismiss defense or is that I'm a fool for citing what's in the book?

 

I don't have the book in front of me to remember the exact quotes, but you are grossly misunderstanding what it said about the A's philosophy. They ignored defense because they decided it wasn't an efficient use of their resoruces, not because it was worthless.

You are also vastly overestimating the importance of those A's teams to sabermetrics inside of baseball, because Michael Lewis is just that darn good of a storyteller. The route the A's chose wasn't even the same route that other, sabermetrically savvy teams were going at that time, let alone the sole blueprint statheads were using before or after.

And finally, you are misunderstanding why the A's lost in the playoffs (although at least it's in a new way from the old "their offense couldn't work in the playoffs against good pitching" that people frequently break out).