Brian Burke is a Dinosaur

[The Legend]

I might be the biggest baseball stat man around and no, Boston never won with moneyball. Moneyball is using metrics to exploit overlooked statistics. The only reason Beane used this strategy was because he didn't have a choice. Boston attempted this strategy after Beane had success in Oakland and abandoned it after a few years and began going on spending sprees.

The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004. Where is the big spending spree that took place after moneyball before that world series?

 

[The Legend]

All that is true BUT there is nothing moneyball about having Manny Ramirez, a superstar hitter that signed the biggest contract ever at the time on your roster. Trading for Schilling and Beckett wasn't moneyball it was trading for ace pitchers that made a lot of money, signing Damon and Foulke weren't cheap bargains. I understand the high OBP, take a lot of pitches approach worked really well but without the star players they don't win.


To me moneyball is all about finding bargains not having a payroll over 100 million and trying to get on base a lot. Anyone can throw Pedro or Schilling or a younger Beckett on the mound and look great, and having a juiced up Manny and Ortiz dominating in the middle of the line up sure helped to.

Any particular reason you picked $100 million in your definition? Nice big round number?

 

[The Legend]

It's possible that the Red Sox used some nerd formula to win a championship I guess, but it is far more likely that they won because they had guys who had the heart to get it done when the games were on the line. How do you give any credit to moneyball when the team came back from a 3 nothing deficit to the best team in baseball? No statistic will ever capture accurately a players heart, and it's the most important statistic when it comes to winning. If player A and B both fit the exact same statistical model, there's still nothing taking into account which of the two is more likely to play on a broken leg in an important game, or which one is going to fold like a tent under the pressure. Nerds have always wanted to be a part of sports and feel like they can use math and formulas to understand what these guys do, but at the end of the day statistics and therefor moneyball strategies will only ever provide a small piece of the puzzle.

I have a lot of heart. Why haven't I made it in sports?

Thank goodness a lot of "nerds" are now working in front offices.

 

[achtungbaby]

Isn't Burke a bit of an innovator himself? He has his own methods for building teams that not everyone agrees with, and while it never worked in TO has done well for him overall, he's the architect behind a great Olympic team as well. Doesn't seem to be the guy to accuse of being a dinosaur, what with his own syste. I don't blame his daughter, the poster I responded too used his daughters quote as "proof" even she is ashamed. I doubt she is ashamed.

A lot of hurt feelings around here. Is it ok to disagree with math? Is it ok to have a divergent opinion? Burke has earned his right to his opinion, and his style of thinking has carried him far in hockey. Obviously that won't get him much from this crowd.

What has Burke done that was so innovative? And what does that have to do with listening to the idea of others anyways? Just because you have your own ideas about how to do things, does that mean you don't have to listen to anybody else? Does that make one so arrogant that they assume they know everything and don't have to learn anything anymore? You don't have to earn a right to your own opinion, everyone has this right, it doesn't make your opinion right or wrong.

The poster you responded to never used the word "proof" or the word ashamed in his post, please read more carefully before posting in the future.

 

[YNWA14]

I'm confused though. Why do 'moneyball' and spending money have to be mutually exclusive?

Moneyball as a concept isn't necessarily predicated by 'not spending money but still winning' it's based around the concept of generating wins by analyzing the underlying statistics that cause wins.

Just because a team has a lot of money doesn't mean they aren't doing just that. It could mean that they just have the means to really execute the concept to its fullest intent. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

I'm confused though. Why do 'moneyball' and spending money have to be mutually exclusive?

Moneyball as a concept isn't necessarily predicated by 'not spending money but still winning' it's based around the concept of generating wins by analyzing the underlying statistics that cause wins.

Just because a team has a lot of money doesn't mean they aren't doing just that. It could mean that they just have the means to really execute the concept to its fullest intent. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

You aren't misunderstanding anything

 

[kmad]

Btw, I hope you realize most "intangiles" you're talking about are quite tangible. Velocity is measurable, position on the ice is verifiable, time of possession (time) is measurable and so on. I'm not even getting into whether or not that's the direction a team would want to get into but that's another story.

These things may be measurable to an extent but not in a meaningful way, and even if the data were processed, no human has a mind that works fast enough to make an in-game decision based on the metrics that would be at play for the extremely rare data that has been procured based on that exact moment of puck control and relative positioning.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

These things may be measurable to an extent but not in a meaningful way, and even if the data were processed, no human has a mind that works fast enough to make an in-game decision based on the metrics that would be at play for the extremely rare data that has been procured based on that exact moment of puck control and relative positioning.

Who needs to make in game decisions?

One game isn't a large enough sample to glean much anyway.

The value in this data would be to accumulate it, parse it out over various scenarios/contexts, and see if it reveals anything interesting.

 

[kmad]

One game isn't a large enough sample to glean much anyway.

The value in this data would be to accumulate it, parse it out over various scenarios/contexts, and see if it reveals anything interesting.

But each piece of data would be so specific to so many variables that it would be impossible to gain any usable value from it.

 

[Mathletic]

These things may be measurable to an extent but not in a meaningful way, and even if the data were processed, no human has a mind that works fast enough to make an in-game decision based on the metrics that would be at play for the extremely rare data that has been procured based on that exact moment of puck control and relative positioning.

ok? But then I guess I don't understand your point. You're telling me that things like velocity, player distance and whatnot are intangibles. I tell you they are measurables. But then you tell me that they are meaningless. So why would a human mind account for velocity, player distance, etc. and then say it's meaningless?

As for in game decisions. Models aren't built on the actual game going on. You'd want to have your data ready and enter the new information in. Then your model would tell you the optimized solution. For example, say a team wants to match a certain line against your top line, then you could use that information to optimize matchups, time on ice and whatnot.

Same for baseball, say a manager makes a pitching change, do you keep your actual batter or do you replace him? It takes a couple clicks to figure out what the best solution is.

 

[kmad]

ok? But then I guess I don't understand your point. You're telling me that things like velocity, player distance and whatnot are intangibles. I tell you they are measurables. But then you tell me that they are meaningless. So why would a human mind account for velocity, player distance, etc. and then say it's meaningless?

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying two things:

1) In order for any useful defensive data to be produced, there are many, many variables that would need be accounted for.

2) It is impossible to produce this data in any meaningful way.

 

[bleedgreen]

What has Burke done that was so innovative? And what does that have to do with listening to the idea of others anyways? Just because you have your own ideas about how to do things, does that mean you don't have to listen to anybody else? Does that make one so arrogant that they assume they know everything and don't have to learn anything anymore? You don't have to earn a right to your own opinion, everyone has this right, it doesn't make your opinion right or wrong.

The poster you responded to never used the word "proof" or the word ashamed in his post, please read more carefully before posting in the future.

Please get off your high horse. The poster was you, obviously. You said she was embarrassed. Obviously not the same exact meaning, but I think it's close enough for this. You used it as "proof" when you referenced her, as in even his own family finds him to be a dinosaur. Of course everyone else is allowed opinions, just as anyone is allowed ones that differ from you. Burke is allowed to disagree that advanced stats are the way to go with hockey, and he's allowed to express his opinion as well about it. He knows he's a good quote, and he gave the people what they wanted. Dinosaur my ass.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Burke did a tough job in the hardest/second hardest market to GM in. The fruits of his labor are starting to show and it's a shame that he got fired for non job performance reasons.

 

[Mathletic]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying two things:

1) In order for any useful defensive data to be produced, there are many, many variables that would need be accounted for.

2) It is impossible to produce this data in any meaningful way.

Fine, it's being done in basketball and soccer. I find there's some good value in the work already done in hockey but we can agree to disagree on this.

 

[jughead42*]

I have a lot of heart. Why haven't I made it in sports?

Thank goodness a lot of "nerds" are now working in front offices.

Hooked on phonics man, it apparently works for people who have difficulty understanding what they read. If you read what I posted and came up with that as a response, clearly it's over your head and you should just move along. I said that heart makes a huge difference when comparing two players with the same statistical production. If you had some sort of production as an athlete, there's no doubt you would have made it in sports with all of that heart you clearly possess. Nerds are working in front offices, but do you really think their influence on player personnel decisions compares at all to the influence of people in the organization who actually watch games to form opinions on players? I don't. It's something tightwad organizations, desperate organizations, and often crummy organizations would rely on and nothing more.

 

[Mathletic]

Hooked on phonics man, it apparently works for people who have difficulty understanding what they read. If you read what I posted and came up with that as a response, clearly it's over your head and you should just move along. I said that heart makes a huge difference when comparing two players with the same statistical production. If you had some sort of production as an athlete, there's no doubt you would have made it in sports with all of that heart you clearly possess. Nerds are working in front offices, but do you really think their influence on player personnel decisions compares at all to the influence of people in the organization who actually watch games to form opinions on players? I don't. It's something tightwad organizations, desperate organizations, and often crummy organizations would rely on and nothing more.

Well yeah, for teams like the Rays, their decisions are heavily influenced by their analytics department. Their owner made a fortune on wall street and had a quant background. The guy was always interested in Bill James' theories. When he bought the Rays he made a commitment to analytics and has never looked back since. The Rays are very likely way more advanced than A's are in that deparment. Heck their GM, Andrew Friedman, was on wall street before he got the job as a GM. He wasn't even in baseball at the time.

Just took a quick look at their front office

Andrew Friedman, Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations
James Click, Director, Baseball Research and Development
Brian Plexico, Architect, Baseball Systems
Daniel Turkenkopf, Developer, Baseball Systems
Joshua Kalk, Analyst, Baseball Research and Development
Leland Chen, Analyst, Baseball Research and Development
Peter Bendix, Assistant, Baseball Research and Development
Shawn Hoffman, Assistant, Baseball Research and Development

That's not even taking into account all their advisors who might actually be stats guys as well.

If you look, you'll also find scouts :O , the 2 can actually work together. The research on decision making shows that the more randomness or less certainty there is about a given subject. The more independent sources you ought to have. People always say the draft is a crapshoop, among other things. So, good reason to have different opinions in those events.

Also, of course, all else being equal you take the hardworking guy. The point is though that heart is vastly overrated. A .628 OPS guy isn't going to help you win more than say a questionnable Josh Hamilton. Then again, going through the leaders in WAR, I couldn't find many guys with big issues. You don't get that good by not being a hardworker in the first place.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004. Where is the big spending spree that took place after moneyball before that world series?

Signing Manny to the biggest contract ever.

Trading for World Series MVP Curt Schilling.

Signing free agents Johnny Damon and Keith Foulke from the real moneyball A's, who replaced them with actual moneyball players.

Signing set up man Mike Timlin and bringing in former closer Kim.

The core of that 2004 Red Sox team was made up of very well known stars or borderline stars signed or traded for. It was an old team and I don't see how Pedro and Schilling and Timlin and Foulke can possibly count as moneyball players. Same with Manny or Damon.

To me moneyball is bringing in lesser known players or cheap players that bring something to the team that is being overlooked by the rest of the league. None of those players fit that definition at all.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Burke did a tough job in the hardest/second hardest market to GM in. The fruits of his labor are starting to show and it's a shame that he got fired for non job performance reasons.

same thing happened in Vancouver. I guess ownership types are afraid of his personality.

 

[The Legend]

Hooked on phonics man, it apparently works for people who have difficulty understanding what they read. If you read what I posted and came up with that as a response, clearly it's over your head and you should just move along. I said that heart makes a huge difference when comparing two players with the same statistical production. If you had some sort of production as an athlete, there's no doubt you would have made it in sports with all of that heart you clearly possess. Nerds are working in front offices, but do you really think their influence on player personnel decisions compares at all to the influence of people in the organization who actually watch games to form opinions on players? I don't. It's something tightwad organizations, desperate organizations, and often crummy organizations would rely on and nothing more.

If you really think that those "nerds" don't watch the games, then debating this subject with you is a moot point. There's a reason that an increasing number people who never played these sports professionally are now running teams.

The heart discussion is a ridiculous one. If you are equating "heart" with "effort", or "endurance", or even "blind luck", I'd understand what you are saying. "Heart" though, is something that was created by analysts (usually ex-players) as a crutch to explain something that they were seeing. You might know it by its baseball term, "Grit". Both are useless measures, and I thank goodness that most people in sports are starting to realize that.

 

[The Legend]

Signing Manny to the biggest contract ever.

Trading for World Series MVP Curt Schilling.

Signing free agents Johnny Damon and Keith Foulke from the real moneyball A's, who replaced them with actual moneyball players.

Signing set up man Mike Timlin and bringing in former closer Kim.

The core of that 2004 Red Sox team was made up of very well known stars or borderline stars signed or traded for. It was an old team and I don't see how Pedro and Schilling and Timlin and Foulke can possibly count as moneyball players. Same with Manny or Damon.

To me moneyball is bringing in lesser known players or cheap players that bring something to the team that is being overlooked by the rest of the league. None of those players fit that definition at all.

Theo Epstein was hired before the 2003 season. He signed David Ortiz and Kevin Millar, and traded for Curt Schilling. Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies. For example, the Toronto Blue Jays have been stockpiling draft picks for many years, using their vast resources to sign as many prospects as possible, because there was no cap on draft spending. That is a moneyball approach.

Lastly - just because Brian Burke got confused by what moneyball means, doesn't mean the rest of us have to. Burke attended a sports analytics conference. If he doesn't believe in the relevancy of statistical analysis, that's fine. But to use that term synonymously with Moneyball is completely ignorant. Every MLB team is now using some form of analytical analysis.

 

[achtungbaby]

Please get off your high horse. The poster was you, obviously. You said she was embarrassed. Obviously not the same exact meaning, but I think it's close enough for this. You used it as "proof" when you referenced her, as in even his own family finds him to be a dinosaur. Of course everyone else is allowed opinions, just as anyone is allowed ones that differ from you. Burke is allowed to disagree that advanced stats are the way to go with hockey, and he's allowed to express his opinion as well about it. He knows he's a good quote, and he gave the people what they wanted. Dinosaur my ass.

Of course I knew you were referenced me. If you can't read well enough to get the basic facts before you post, I'm not going to do your homework for you. Disagreeing with advanced stats at an advanced stats conference your own daughter is a part of is probably the wrong place to voice a disagreement no? At least attend another workshop to get a feel for what you're disagreeing with is another thing you should probably do, right? At least for your daughters sake?

 

[Man Bear Pig]

The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004. Where is the big spending spree that took place after moneyball before that world series?

The post below answers your question. The RedSox bailed on the moneyball approach and went the way of their rivals, the Yankees. Spend tons of cash and pray for the best.

Signing Manny to the biggest contract ever.

Trading for World Series MVP Curt Schilling.

Signing free agents Johnny Damon and Keith Foulke from the real moneyball A's, who replaced them with actual moneyball players.

Signing set up man Mike Timlin and bringing in former closer Kim.

The core of that 2004 Red Sox team was made up of very well known stars or borderline stars signed or traded for. It was an old team and I don't see how Pedro and Schilling and Timlin and Foulke can possibly count as moneyball players. Same with Manny or Damon.

To me moneyball is bringing in lesser known players or cheap players that bring something to the team that is being overlooked by the rest of the league. None of those players fit that definition at all.

 

[kmad]

Fine, it's being done in basketball and soccer. I find there's some good value in the work already done in hockey but we can agree to disagree on this.

Somehow it feels like hockey is a better sport if it can't be chopped up and measured, you know?

 

[Mathletic]

Somehow it feels like hockey is a better sport if it can't be chopped up and measured, you know?

sure

 

[kmad]

sure

Guess I just got lucky.