PDA

View Full Version : US loss in World Baseball Classic: revamp of the Moneyball wars?



PaulieIsAwesome
03-21-06, 02:47 PM
I knew someone would argue this:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20060321&content_id=1357845&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp&sid=wbc

Does Mike Bauman not realize that had Dontrelle Willis pitched at all better, the US at least makes the semis? Does he not realize that 6 games are a terrible sample? That baseball is not at all like basketball, and that "US basketball is all about isolation play" and "US baseball is all about home runs" are completely different?

Also, more small ball like players Johnny Damon and Randy Winn played like crap. More small ball Derek Jeter played well. Big ball Griffey, Derrek Lee, and Chipper Jones played well. Big ball Teixiera played atrociously. Why generalize about styles of play from 6 games?

Mystic Merlyn
03-21-06, 03:49 PM
Small ball is an idiotic term in and of itself-it's more like stupid ball or something.

dabomb2045
03-21-06, 05:26 PM
I do agree with part of his article. Other countries stress better fundamentals at the developmental level then Americans do.

I guarantee you if you talked to a Japanese high school player, and an American high school player...the Japanese kid's knowledge of fundamentals would blow the American kid's knowledge out of the water

yankeesAZ
03-21-06, 09:30 PM
I do agree with part of his article. Other countries stress better fundamentals at the developmental level then Americans do.

I guarantee you if you talked to a Japanese high school player, and an American high school player...the Japanese kid's knowledge of fundamentals would blow the American kid's knowledge out of the water

That seems to be the case in all sports here. Too many of us want to be on SportsCenter. I'm not buying the excuse "our timing was off" or "we weren't ready until after ST or after the WS".

dabomb2045
03-21-06, 09:48 PM
That seems to be the case in all sports here. Too many of us want to be on SportsCenter. I'm not buying the excuse "our timing was off" or "we weren't ready until after ST or after the WS".


Agreed. Americans are too infatuated with the flashy plays...the dunk, and the HR. Instead of learning the fundamentals.

Why do you think the only good jump shooters in the NBA are Euros?? American kids cant shoot...its because they dont practice it growing up. Instead they are all into the schoolyard style of ball...dunking, and all the highlight reel plays.

Same can apply to baseball. Americans lack in fundamentals.

26 and counting
03-21-06, 11:16 PM
American basketball players can't even make free throws, never mind the 18-foot jump shot with a defender's hand in your face.

This is why the WBC will never work - There's no surefire way to tell who are the best four teams after only six games. That's why MLB has 162 games to decide who's good enough to get to the playoffs. And deciding the semifinals and finals with one-game playoffs? Is this a joke? Given the opportunity, a good college baseball team like the University of Texas might be able to beat the Yankees in any given game. If UT wins a one-game playoff against the Yankees, should they be declared the better team?

So in my mind, the WBC is a fun, interesting exhibition, but the winner of the tournament is irrelevant, given the number of games it takes to decide the champion.

dabomb2045
03-21-06, 11:22 PM
American basketball players can't even make free throws, never mind the 18-foot jump shot with a defender's hand in your face.

This is why the WBC will never work - There's no surefire way to tell who are the best four teams after only six games. That's why MLB has 162 games to decide who's good enough to get to the playoffs. And deciding the semifinals and finals with one-game playoffs? Is this a joke? Given the opportunity, a good college baseball team like the University of Texas might be able to beat the Yankees in any given game. If UT wins a one-game playoff against the Yankees, should they be declared the better team?

So in my mind, the WBC is a fun, interesting exhibition, but the winner of the tournament is irrelevant, given the number of games it takes to decide the champion.

I like the whole "one game, anything can happen situation". I think thats what makes the NCAA Tournament so popular in this country. People watch it, and root for the underdogs...and knowing its only a game shot, its possible for the underdog to win.

PaulieIsAwesome
03-22-06, 01:40 AM
American basketball players can't even make free throws, never mind the 18-foot jump shot with a defender's hand in your face.

This is why the WBC will never work - There's no surefire way to tell who are the best four teams after only six games. That's why MLB has 162 games to decide who's good enough to get to the playoffs. And deciding the semifinals and finals with one-game playoffs? Is this a joke? Given the opportunity, a good college baseball team like the University of Texas might be able to beat the Yankees in any given game. If UT wins a one-game playoff against the Yankees, should they be declared the better team?

So in my mind, the WBC is a fun, interesting exhibition, but the winner of the tournament is irrelevant, given the number of games it takes to decide the champion.

I think the WBC will still work, because of the reasons mentioned by dabomb, that Americans are obsessed with the NCAA tourney, where the particular attraction is that literally anything can happen.

However, I would question the other posters in this thread: Did the Japanese team win because of "small ball," or because they pitched better as a whole than the Americans? Isn't strong defensive play one of the critical elements of being fundamentally sound, and aren't some "big ball" players like Alex Rodriguez and Derrek Lee superlative defensive players? Simply, doesn't this tournament tell us pretty much nothing about the best style of play?

iodon
03-22-06, 12:18 PM
Simply, doesn't this tournament tell us pretty much nothing about the best style of play?

You're right on here. All the talk after this tourny reminds me of the NFL. When one team wins the Super Bowl, every other team scrambles to build a team just like them rather than just exploiting their own strengths. If the US was hot and hit a ton of home runs, everyone wouls day that the Earl Weaver style of play was back. But when the winning team does it with timely hitting, everyone thinks that is the only way to win.

The game is pretty simple, score more runs than your opponents and you win. There are many ways to do that. Good defense and timely hitting helps, good pitching works too. But there have been a fair number of teams that have won by just scoring a ton of runs and not worrying about the other things.

dabomb2045
03-22-06, 02:40 PM
I think the WBC will still work, because of the reasons mentioned by dabomb, that Americans are obsessed with the NCAA tourney, where the particular attraction is that literally anything can happen.

However, I would question the other posters in this thread: Did the Japanese team win because of "small ball," or because they pitched better as a whole than the Americans? Isn't strong defensive play one of the critical elements of being fundamentally sound, and aren't some "big ball" players like Alex Rodriguez and Derrek Lee superlative defensive players? Simply, doesn't this tournament tell us pretty much nothing about the best style of play?

I think all this tournament tells us....is that other countries stress fundamentals more, then America does.

American kids are too obsessed with the HR....instead of really taking the time to learn and understand how the game should be played.

ojo
03-22-06, 04:13 PM
this tournament told me which countries/teams were willing to hit behind runners.

Iknowcool
03-22-06, 06:47 PM
Damon didn't play that much. I think he got like 9 WBC ABs. And Winn played like crap for a reason. He is crap. Look at his career numbers beyond last year. Sounds like 06 was a fluke year to me. There is no way he should have made the team, Bubba Crosby should've made it before him. The main thing that really killed us was our defense. All those errors in the Canada game simply highlights

dabomb2045
03-22-06, 07:25 PM
this tournament told me which countries/teams were willing to hit behind runners.


Well, thats a fundamental of the game that we lack.

SoCal Pinstriper
03-22-06, 09:28 PM
Small ball is an idiotic term in and of itself-it's more like stupid ball or something. I don't support small ball in MLB, but how else should a team that lacks power throughout the lineup like Japan or Korea play? They are forced to manufacture runs because most of their players don't have the power found on the DR or US.

I do agree with part of his article. Other countries stress better fundamentals at the developmental level then Americans do.

I guarantee you if you talked to a Japanese high school player, and an American high school player...the Japanese kid's knowledge of fundamentals would blow the American kid's knowledge out of the water One of the biggest surprises of the WBC for me was how poorly Japan and Cuba executed fundamentals in both fielding and on the basepaths.

The WBC showed that the teams that pitch well will succede in a tournament format. Korea benefitted from remarkable pitching with the exception of one horrible inning (that blew their shot at the finals), and, because of that pitching, finished with the best record. The US had two bad outings from one pitcher, and found themselves out.

This is why the WBC will never work - There's no surefire way to tell who are the best four teams after only six games.
So in my mind, the WBC is a fun, interesting exhibition, but the winner of the tournament is irrelevant, given the number of games it takes to decide the champion. The WBC does work. It's purpose was to generate fan interest, TV ratings, and attendance revenue. It has done all three to a greater degree than anyone anticipated.

More to your point, the WBC does not, nor was it ever designed to, determine a world champion. Japan is the Tournament Champion, nothing more. They were the winners of a two and a half week tournament played with a format that could best be described as a beta test.

MLB's postseason has always been little more to me as it provides a snapshot of which team is healthiest and hottest for four weeks in October. It would be tough to argue that the season's best team always wins the World Series. I'm with "26and counting" as a big believer in a regular season to establish that.

BobbyMurcerFan
03-23-06, 12:41 PM
I do agree with part of his article. Other countries stress better fundamentals at the developmental level then Americans do.

I guarantee you if you talked to a Japanese high school player, and an American high school player...the Japanese kid's knowledge of fundamentals would blow the American kid's knowledge out of the waterNot the ones around here in So. Cal. Many take baseball VERY SERIOUSLY and are extremely well trained and coached.

homer2931
04-01-06, 05:45 PM
Well, thats a fundamental of the game that we lack.
Yeah, Americans simply don't make outs often enough, thats why we lost the WBC

toolfreak777
04-20-06, 09:32 AM
the American team should have convened earlier to get back in the "swing of things", the cuban team played so well because they have been playing baseball for several months prior to the world baseball classic. i am really disapointed, beause it is our game and we were schooled

Mystic Merlyn
04-20-06, 06:56 PM
What does this have to do with Moneyball?

ryanm1058123
04-20-06, 06:57 PM
Well, thats a fundamental of the game that we lack.

Then whats Venezuela's problem? I know you want to use this as a way to bash American baseball, but you can also say the DR underachieved a little. Do they have problem with how they teach baseball? I just attribute it to the lack of preperation time. See Olympics basketball.

PaulieIsAwesome
04-20-06, 09:59 PM
What does this have to do with Moneyball?

I meant in the old-school, 2003, Michael Lewis bitching at Joe Morgan in the pages of Sports Illustrated about the value of stolen bases and bunts, sort of way.

Mystic Merlyn
04-20-06, 10:10 PM
I meant in the old-school, 2003, Michael Lewis bitching at Joe Morgan in the pages of Sports Illustrated about the value of stolen bases and bunts, sort of way.

He's right. Joe Morgan is an idiot that ignores the facts in every scenario. I still love the gem last year about how the '04 Sox were a "free-swinging team", although they led the league in OBP. He certainly doesn't let facts get in the way.

It's a tired subject, but bunts and steals are generally a stupid idea, except in a very limited number of situations (like the Roberts steal, for example).

Moneyball really isn't about shunning small-ball. I honestly question whether half the people who talk about the book have even read it. It's really about identifying a market (OBP, defense) that other teams improperly evaluate. The whole point is to more effectively value that aspect and see the players that might be undervalued because of traditional ignorance in that area. It's not just about OBP-it's about being ahead of the curve when it comes to finding effective value in players and exploiting other teams' inability to recognize this value and the system from which it is derived.

The WBC was an absurdly small sample, where small ball may look genius. However, in the greater picture it is statistically idiotic. And, as others have expounded upon, the U.S. wasn't killing itself to win this thing like teams like Cuba and Venezuela, who had far less high profile players. The U.S. basically rolled the ball on the field, so to speak, and competed with little to none preparation.

PaulieIsAwesome
04-20-06, 10:31 PM
He's right. Joe Morgan is an idiot that ignores the facts in every scenario. I still love the gem last year about how the '04 Sox were a "free-swinging team", although they led the league in OBP. He certainly doesn't let facts get in the way.

It's a tired subject, but bunts and steals are generally a stupid idea, except in a very limited number of situations (like the Roberts steal, for example).

Moneyball really isn't about shunning small-ball. I honestly question whether half the people who talk about the book have even read it. It's really about identifying a market (OBP, defense) that other teams improperly evaluate. The whole point is to more effectively value that aspect and see the players that might be undervalued because of traditional ignorance in that area. It's not just about OBP-it's about being ahead of the curve when it comes to finding effective value in players and exploiting other teams' inability to recognize this value and the system from which it is derived.

The WBC was an absurdly small sample, where small ball may look genius. However, in the greater picture it is statistically idiotic. And, as others have expounded upon, the U.S. wasn't killing itself to win this thing like teams like Cuba and Venezuela, who had far less high profile players. The U.S. basically rolled the ball on the field, so to speak, and competed with little to none preparation.

And in fact, since Moneyball was published, Beane has been almost completely not about OBP: all about pitching and D, with the only caveat that his offensive players generally take walks.