Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Billy Beane - HOFer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

    He's 3-8 in postseason series'

    23-32 in post season games.

    those are hard numbers to ignore
    There's so much luck involved in a small sample. Didn't virtually all those postseason series losses go seven games? So Dusty's postseason series record could totally invert if like 5 lousy games break his way.

    A manager can blow a given series by mishandling his rotation or bullpen, or with really dopey strategic moves. But much more often, one manager's guys just play better than the other's.

    In the modern era, with three rounds of playoffs plus a wild card play-in game, there's just so much randomness involved in winning a title that giving a manager too much credit or blame seems wrongheaded.

    Regular season success is a stronger indication of a manager's or executive's skill. (Just as with players.)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cougar View Post

      There's so much luck involved in a small sample. Didn't virtually all those postseason series losses go seven games? So Dusty's postseason series record could totally invert if like 5 lousy games break his way.

      A manager can blow a given series by mishandling his rotation or bullpen, or with really dopey strategic moves. But much more often, one manager's guys just play better than the other's.

      In the modern era, with three rounds of playoffs plus a wild card play-in game, there's just so much randomness involved in winning a title that giving a manager too much credit or blame seems wrongheaded.

      Regular season success is a stronger indication of a manager's or executive's skill. (Just as with players.)
      The object is to win. Managers are judged partially on their post season record.
      This week's Giant

      #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

      Comment


      • In 22 seasons, Beane has more regular season wins than Dusty Baker, Lou Piniella or Jim Leyland. Beane's winning percentage is virtually the same as Baker's and clearly better than either Piniella or Leyland. Beane's Games Over .500 is substantially better than the latter two and a little less than Baker's.

        In short, it appears that Beane is the executive version of Dusty Baker in many respects. I would argue, however, that Beane has worked under far more difficult conditions than Baker did, given that Baker was handed talented teams at every stop and that Beane has had to build them given very few resources with which to work (relative to other teams).

        So, at a minimum, if you see Dusty Baker as Hall-worthy, I don't see how someone could honestly view Beane much differently. Both have a reputation for their teams coming up short in the playoffs, though (again), I would argue that Baker had more to work with there.

        Another thing to consider is that Beane's teams have reached the playoffs in 10 of his 22 seasons in charge. People looking at this as a negative for lack of a World Championship sounds eerily like those who tried to turn Atlanta's consecutive division title run into a negative factor because they only won a single World Series. In other words, I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

        If the A's under Beane had a World Series victory to their credit, this whole conversation would be moot. That's what makes this interesting - it's not an easy, open-and-shut case. There is nuance involved.

        What must a World Series-less executive or manager do to merit election to Cooperstown? How much success must he have? For anyone who insists on a World Championship, is there no exception you're willing to consider?

        Also, consider that Beane isn't leaving baseball ops anytime soon and that he'll reach 2,000 victories sometime in the 2021 season. Would a 2,000-win manager be vehemently opposed for lack of a World Championship?

        I'm asking.
        Last edited by Chadwick; 10-09-2019, 02:08 PM.
        "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
        "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
        "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
        "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
          The object is to win. Managers are judged partially on their post season record.
          This is true, but look at Manager of the Year Awards, too. Managers are also judged based on what they do with the talent they have. Plenty of managers receive praise for doing well with lesser (on paper) rosters. Shouldn't we take an executive's resources into account? Brian Cashman has produced results, but you can't tell me many of us won't be giving him a demerit solely because he did it for the Yankees. Would he have been as successful as the GM of Minnesota or Kansas City? I'm just saying, Beane's success has been over-and-above what anyone should reasonably have expected from the A's over the same period of time. That ought to factor in.

          Context matters.
          "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
          "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
          "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
          "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

            He's 3-8 in postseason series'

            23-32 in post season games.

            those are hard numbers to ignore
            I'm not saying ignore them. But should those numbers trump Dusty's great regular season success? Not winning the 2002 World Series and not winning at least the 2003 NL pennant has clearly hurt his Hall of Fame case.
            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cougar View Post

              There's so much luck involved in a small sample. Didn't virtually all those postseason series losses go seven games? So Dusty's postseason series record could totally invert if like 5 lousy games break his way.

              A manager can blow a given series by mishandling his rotation or bullpen, or with really dopey strategic moves. But much more often, one manager's guys just play better than the other's.

              In the modern era, with three rounds of playoffs plus a wild card play-in game, there's just so much randomness involved in winning a title that giving a manager too much credit or blame seems wrongheaded.

              Regular season success is a stronger indication of a manager's or executive's skill. (Just as with players.)
              I would say that if just two games broke his way Dusty would be a stronger Hall of Fame candidate.

              1) 2002 World Series Game 6- The Giants were five outs away from winning the title but their top three relievers all give up huge hits that cost them the game. That never happened before where all three got beat.

              2) 2003 NLCS Game 6- The Bartman game.

              In both of these games crazy circumstances cost Dusty a World Series title and another NL pennant at least. If Dusty wins the 2002 World Series and wins the NL pennant in 2003 his HoF case would be much stronger.
              Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 10-09-2019, 09:34 PM.
              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

                The object is to win. Managers are judged partially on their post season record.
                Baker, rightly or wrongly, has a reputation for making some poor decisions particularly related to his pitcher usage. Few guys have a better player/contributor case. But in the real HoF this hardly matters. It's either manager or player and they are mutually exclusive it seems.
                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post

                  Baker, rightly or wrongly, has a reputation for making some poor decisions particularly related to his pitcher usage. Few guys have a better player/contributor case. But in the real HoF this hardly matters. It's either manager or player and they are mutually exclusive it seems.
                  By "in the real HOF" do you mean in practice? Because the "real" rules absolutely permit combined case consideration. In fact, the early years of BBWAA voting (to say nothing of Veterans Committee selections) certainly indicate that voters have frequently considered a man's entire career in baseball. The distinction as a manager, executive, ump or player on the ballot is merely a categorization, not an exclusion. Much the same that the Hall lists Rod Carew as a second baseman, but that doesn't mean voters excluded his first base years in considering his merits.

                  I would put Joe Torre up as a recent example, though his managing career was so over the top that it's hard to say whether the voters even bothered to weigh that.

                  You're right about Baker. He was an All-Star player for a few years and for a combined career he should certainly be over the line.

                  That said, I personally don't like the combined player/non-player case, but the Hall of Fame certainly permits it (and has acted on it in the past).

                  "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                  "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                  "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                  "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                    In 22 seasons, Beane has more regular season wins than Dusty Baker, Lou Piniella or Jim Leyland. Beane's winning percentage is virtually the same as Baker's and clearly better than either Piniella or Leyland. Beane's Games Over .500 is substantially better than the latter two and a little less than Baker's.

                    In short, it appears that Beane is the executive version of Dusty Baker in many respects. I would argue, however, that Beane has worked under far more difficult conditions than Baker did, given that Baker was handed talented teams at every stop and that Beane has had to build them given very few resources with which to work (relative to other teams).

                    So, at a minimum, if you see Dusty Baker as Hall-worthy, I don't see how someone could honestly view Beane much differently. Both have a reputation for their teams coming up short in the playoffs, though (again), I would argue that Baker had more to work with there.

                    Another thing to consider is that Beane's teams have reached the playoffs in 10 of his 22 seasons in charge. People looking at this as a negative for lack of a World Championship sounds eerily like those who tried to turn Atlanta's consecutive division title run into a negative factor because they only won a single World Series. In other words, I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

                    If the A's under Beane had a World Series victory to their credit, this whole conversation would be moot. That's what makes this interesting - it's not an easy, open-and-shut case. There is nuance involved.

                    What must a World Series-less executive or manager do to merit election to Cooperstown? How much success must he have? For anyone who insists on a World Championship, is there no exception you're willing to consider?

                    Also, consider that Beane isn't leaving baseball ops anytime soon and that he'll reach 2,000 victories sometime in the 2021 season. Would a 2,000-win manager be vehemently opposed for lack of a World Championship?

                    I'm asking.
                    This is simply not true. The opposite is actually true. Dusty inherited losing teams in San Francisco, Chicago, and Cincinnati.

                    Dusty's time with the Giants, Cubs, and Reds.

                    SF Giants
                    1991: 75-87
                    1992: 72-90
                    1993: 103-59
                    1994: 55-60
                    1995: 67-77
                    1996: 68-94
                    1997: 90-72
                    1998: 89-74
                    1999: 86-76
                    2000: 97-65
                    2001: 90-72
                    2002: 95-66

                    The two seasons before 1993 the Giants were terrible. Then they win 103 games. A lot of that success came from career seasons from several pitchers and a other position players. They all fell back to earth in 1994. Other than Bonds the team had no top talent. To equate having Barry Bonds to having a deep powerhouse team is incorrect. It took a few years for the Giants to acquire top talent to help Bonds. And from 1997-2004 the team contended every year (had 5 straight 90+ win seasons). It says a lot that even after the Giants lost 94 games in 1996 (second most losses ever in franchise history by the way) the team did NOT fire Dusty because they knew Dusty wasn't the problem. Lack of talent was the problem.


                    Chicago Cubs
                    1999: 67-95
                    2000: 65-97
                    2001: 88-74
                    2002: 67-95
                    2003: 88-74
                    2004: 89-73
                    2005: 79-83
                    2006: 66-96

                    In 3 of the four previous seasons before Dusty arrived in Chicago the Cubs lost 95+ games. His first year with the Cubs they won the NL Central. In 2004 the team was even better and had a strong +134 run differential. Even in 2005 the team was in the playoff hunt until about mid August. It was only in 2006 that the wheels fell off.

                    Cincinnati Reds
                    2001: 66-96
                    2002: 78-84
                    2003: 69-93
                    2004: 76-86
                    2005: 73-89
                    2006: 80-82
                    2007: 72-90
                    2008: 74-88
                    2009: 78-84
                    2010: 91-71
                    2011: 79-83
                    2012: 97-65
                    2013: 90-72


                    The Reds had seven consecutive losing seasons before Dusty arrived. In fact the Reds had losing seasons in Dusty's first two years with the Reds, though they did slightly improve both years.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • My statement that Dusty took over good teams refers to the talent core he inherited. The Giants, Cubs, Reds and Nationals had the talent in place by the time he took the reigns. Had someone else taken over, there's little doubt they would have also seen success with the same talent. How much more or less is anyone's guess. The point is that Baker wasn't exactly inheriting junk rosters.
                      "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                      "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                      "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                      "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post


                        SF Giants
                        1991: 75-87
                        1992: 72-90
                        1993: 103-59
                        .
                        Hmm .. do you think that adding Barry Bonds helped.

                        This week's Giant

                        #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

                          Hmm .. do you think that adding Barry Bonds helped.
                          Of course it did. 1993 was probably Bonds's greatest season sans artificial enhancements.

                          On the other hand, keeping a long-term lid on a clubhouse with, shall we say, strong personalities, has been a noteworthy skill of Dusty's.

                          We've all seen teams with toxic clubhouse cultures go south despite the presence of superstar talent. To his credit, that never happened to a Baker team.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

                            Hmm .. do you think that adding Barry Bonds helped.
                            Of course it did. Was Bonds worth 31 additional wins by himself? Hardly. Dusty somehow got a good team to have a 103 win season.
                            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                              My statement that Dusty took over good teams refers to the talent core he inherited.
                              If this is true then why did the Giants, Cub, and Reds have losing records before Dusty arrived? The Reds had seven consecutive losing seasons before Dusty arrived.

                              The Giants, Cubs, Reds and Nationals had the talent in place by the time he took the reigns. Had someone else taken over, there's little doubt they would have also seen success with the same talent. How much more or less is anyone's guess. The point is that Baker wasn't exactly inheriting junk rosters.
                              Really? Then why does Billy Martin get so much credit for "turning teams around"? He couldn't have managed those turnarounds if he didn't already have the players in place to make it happen, right? Thus if the talent was already there the another manager should have had similar success as Martin. Ergo, Martin should not get any extra credit for turning teams around.
                              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                              Comment


                              • I'm too young to remember Baker taking over the Giants but I recall when he showed up in Chicago, Cincinnati and Washington the word was always that now this team will contend. And they always did. Same with Buck Showalter.
                                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X