Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

If the playoffs are a crapshoot, Torre was simply on a roll? Does this mean that Beane and the A's were simply unlucky, as were all those "great" Braves teams (which cited the same bad luck)?

How do you logicallly explain failing repeatedly in the playoffs when you have three extremely solid starters set up in order (Hudson, Mulder and Zito or Maddux. Smoltz and Glavine) and/or a 2-0 lead?

Bob, I didn't say the playoffs were a "crapshoot." I said that luck was "a factor," which it of course was. Obviously, those Braves and A's teams suffered from faulty bullpens and a failure to execute some fundamentals. But a few breaks here or there (like when the ump got in the way of Jermaine Dye in '96, or if Shane Spencer's overthrow hadn't bounced exactly right in '01), and maybe things would've been different.

Below is my entry from the earlier posting that I put up an hour ago on the subject. Again, a few of those A's teams might not have been as talented as their opponents, but there was also some luck/karma/joss involved.

"The postseason is indeed filled with luck -- and not the "residue of design" kind that Branch Rickey liked to talk about. (Hello, Jeffrey Maier.) Sure, a little more depth in the bullpen and an uber-strong nos. 1 and 2 starters don't hurt either.

Just as the A's have had little postseason success this decade, the Braves won only one World Series title in its amazing run of regular season success. Does this make the reputations of Kasten, Schuerholz, and/or Bobby Cox any less stellar?

Beane is the best in the game but that does not mean that he is the model for every other team to emulate. After all, not every city would be so forgiving of a general manager who played the odds (no matter how successfully) and decided that his team was better off retooling despite being only three-and-a-half games out of the wildcard."

Ken (or anyone else), here's a question regarding yesterday's Mets game, which I did not see, save for the highlights.

With runners on first and third and no one out in the 10th inning, why did the runner on third (Cancel) not break for home when the ball was hit on the ground, albeit at the third baseman? After all, I cannot imagine a worse scenario than A. Reyes hitting into a double play and Cancel not scoring. (If Cancel is thrown out at the plate, then, you still have runners at first and second (or second and third, assuming Cancel got into a protracted rundown?) Thank heavens that the ball was thrown away.

I am reminded (vaguely, to be sure) of the 2000 World Series' game one at Yankee Stadium, when Bobby V did not send the runner from third on a similar play (there was also a runner on second at the time, I think) and it ended up costing the Amazins a badly needed run.

I promised myself that I wasn't going to post anything today or maybe even all week. But, I just keep getting dragged back in.

Any conversation about "luck" is a waste of time. What is the point of it? Luck plays a role in each of our lives each day. Why is one person randomly robbed and stabbed on a street and another isn't? Why does one person drive through an intersection unscathed and the next car gets in a fatal collision?

Luck plays a role in every team's season. But, at the end of the day, luck isn't letting a mediocre team win the World Series. The Yankees had great teams during many of Torre's years. Yes, they benefitted from luck (Jeffrey Maier). Opponents were likewise on the receiving end of favorable umpire's calls, diving catches, homeruns off foul poles, etc.

Over a long stretch of years you can't tell me the A's were unlucky and therefore went 1-10 in playoff series. Nor did luck put the Yankees in the World Series 5 of 6 years. The A's were a good West Division team. It's a division with just four teams in it. The Yankees were one of the all time great dynasties.

I remember hearing Peter Gammons speaking about Joe Torre around 2001 or 2002. He spoke of how Torre's energy level was nothing like it was when he came to New York and how basically he was an entirely different manager compared to when he came to the NYY. Torre enjoyed the big salary, the public adulation, Billy Crystal and the Hollywood crowd hanging around, Guiliani at the games, getting paid big bucks for books, commercials and speaking engagements, but he didn't like taking ultimate responsibility. Hence, "the playoffs are a crapshoot." On why he should be paid $7 million a year despite not winning the World Series for 8 years: "You have to look at the entire body of work."

Is Billy Beane a genius? How many World Series titles does he have? Case closed.

I might not be too smart, yet I am smart enough to see through all of this.

JE Jay Johnstone wrote two of the best baseball books of all time. I remember reading it when I was 15 or so. In one of the books he talks about a 3rd base coach for the Cubs getting a nasty letter from a fan. The fan was upset that the guy on 3rd didn't break for home with none-out and a man on 1st. The ball was hit to 3rd, the guy stayed at 3rd and the player hit into a double play. The final score of that game was the Phillies 23, the Cubs 22. The 3rd base coach and the fan randomly saw each other at a restaurant, and the 3rd basecoach screamed, "I told the runner to run on contact if the ball was a grounder!" I think it may have been Don Zimmer but I dont remember.

Ken, the A's lost playoff series after playoff series because (sorry) they not only didn't hustle, they refused to sometimes even walk to the plate! Twice in 03' against the Red Sox in the 5th inning they could have scored but were tagged out at home plate because one player was walking home (he thought it was fielder interference, and the other guy stood right next to home and didn't touch the base@!@#!!) Miguel Tejada didn't go to third on a Jason Giambi single in 01' and of course Jeremy Giambi refused to slide. And that's the only ones I NOTICED. It probably happened a lot more than that. It wasn't luck that they sucked in the playoffs, it was effort. Or lackthereof.

Jim, you really should have had those kids mow the lawn for you on that super-hot, super-humid afternoon! ;-)

After reading those last two paragraphs, how can I not then conclude that Ted Williams and Dan Marino were bums for not guiding their teams to the Promised Land?

Let Brian Cashman attempt to put together playoff-bound teams with a payroll under $80 million and then we can have a fairer analysis. And giving credit to Joe Torre for the 1996 season is like crediting Bill Clinton for the economic recovery that was already underway by the time he had defeated Bush pere.

Thanks for the cute anecdote! (By the way, what was the point of having Jay Johnstone appear in the first Naked Gun film if he wasn't going to have a speaking role?!?)

I had meant to thank you in the post by name, Richie. My bad. Again, that's a fun story!

I don't know if my post had anything to do with this, but... I don't think Beane does a bad job -- I understand his philosophy. It's just that nowadays it seems like he breaks his team up and reloads every two or three years. At least the big three stuck together for a while and had a nice run. But Haren and Blanton are already gone. And while Beane has developed good pitching, has he had a truly dynamic offensive player since Giambi or Tejada? It looked like he finally had his closer, and now Street is a mess.

I was just curious what Beane had in mind -- what his endgame was -- when he breaks up his team so often. Does he plan to find the "right" players and try to keep them on the team for a while so they can have a playoff run? Or will he continue to trade them away, narrowing their winning "window" down to a few years, at which point he'll start all over again?

If it's the latter, why would you ever invest yourself as a fan in this team?

I think the model of the Rays makes much more sense. And as far as development of young players goes, Beane seems middle-of-the-pack when you look at the Rays, Dodgers, Marlins, Braves, etc.

JE, Ted Williams and Dan Marino were PLAYERS. I am talking about MANAGERS and GMs. I don't credit Cashman for those early titles. The pieces were already in place. Cashman's body of work as far as I am concerned is much more recent. I am not as generous as Ken is toward Cashman, although I don't see a slam-dunk replacement in line.

While I love to knock Torre, because I think he deserves it, he has to get credit for the 96 title. Yes, he inherited a very good team. But, he still brought the club to the World Series and won it. Not even I can take that away from him.

BTW, 9-of-10 times when a runner on third breaks for home on a ball hit to third the runner is out by 20 feet. You can't outrun a ball thrown by a major league third baseman.

The A's didn't have the heart, gird and guts to win in the playoffs. They were SOFT in big games. When face with adversity, the A's seem to crumble. All the breaks didn't go their way.
When Torre won 4 World Series, he was able to get pecks. The fact he the Yankees manager gave him a leg up.
Jim, the Cardinals won 83 games and needed the Astros to lose in the last day of the season to win the NL Cnetral in 2006. They then get into the playoffs and beat the Padres in 4 games in the NLDS. They were underdogs to the Mets and beat them in 7 games. And in the World Series they beat the Tigers in 5 games with some help from the Tigers pitchers who throw the ball all over the place to 3rd base. Plus the Tigers had a week off before Game 1, which hurted thier chances. Would you consider the Cardinals run lucky or a team tha got hot at the right time?
Buck Showalter would not have won the 1996, 1998, 1999 or 2000 World Series if he had been the manager of the Yanks. Torre was there at the right place at the right time.

Ken:

To be precise, the crapshoot line comes from a 2003 press conference, where Bobby Cox is discussing the best of five series set-up.

http://pressbox.mlb.com/pressbox/downloads/y2003/quotes/cox_1004.pdf

---

and why championships matter..

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112846710844060029-IoLB_XQ14QADb9Vmk0yjrBdTcnY_20051017.html?mod=mktw

Schueholz "what we have done is the most remarkable thing that's ever been achieved in the history of professional sports -- winning our division 14 consecutive years."

--

So, winning a weak division 14 times is greater than the Yanks' five straight WS wins, the Packers or Celtics' titles, Islanders, Bulls...?

It's not horseshoes...being close isn't enough in order to become a legedary player. - or manager. And Beane's theories reduce the manager to a middle management role.

Dennis:

1. Cardinals were a hot team. Luck occurs in a game, in an instant/play. Not over a couple of weeks.

2. Agreed on Showalter. Buck was the right guy pre-96. The Yankees wouldn't have won all the title under him.

3. Perks are usually defined as a car, cell phone, plane ticket upgrade. Torre made over $20 million (including bonuses) during his last three year deal. That's a ridiculous sum for a baseball manager, especially one with a roster costing over $200 million that can't seem to get out of the first round.

Bob T. - Torre seemed to adopt the "crapshoot" line as his own pretty quickly.

Regarding Byrnes and Tejada and Giambi and any other A's blunders in the early years of this decade, that's not about luck, to be sure.

Let's keep something else in mind, though: in the 2002 best-of-five series against the Twins, the A's actually scored more runs per game (.6) than they had during the regular season. So why did they lose in five? Simple: Tim Hudson had two lousy starts, despite having had an outstanding year. No "lack of hustle" issues there.

So what if the guy is out by 30 feet, Jim, wouldn't you rather let the guy run on contact and take a chance on first and second (or, again, second or third in case of a long rundown) with one out instead of a guy on third base with two out?

Thank heavens that the manager position is being (slightly) downgraded, Bob! How many times do we have to watch Dusty Baker and, yes, Wilie Randolph, to know that managers are to baseball what foreign policy is to a president: just a little bit of potential upside but lots of possible downside?

Dennis, I guess Joe Torre's record with the Mets. Braves, and Cardinals indicate that he was the right guy in the right place at the right time. He was fortunate enough to be a guy with a losing record inherit a team that had had the best record in the major leagues before the strike ended the 1994 season. Or am I missing something?

JE, I understand your point and what you would like to see on the field (even if an out results), but the traditional baseball I learned states that you don't run home from third on a ball hit to the third baseman. It is very difficult to score from third on that play. It's a shorter throw, the catcher is usually in excellent position because of where the throw is coming from and the runner is almost always out - and by a good amount.

JE, I liked your point on Torre. He lost everywhere he had ever been. All of a sudden he is one of the all time greats when he comes to the Yankees (and benefits from the huge payroll and the excellent players.)

JE:

Yes, spot on regarding Torre. There's no problem that can't be solved by money and talent in winning baseball games fro 12 years. Funny how the Braves became weaker when the Time Warner spigot was shut!

There are quotes regarding "crapshoot" attributed to Beane. One is regarding the draft (which is accurate). There is another where George Will quotes Beane in an article that says "it is a crapshoot" regarding the playoffs.
-

As for Beane and maximization equations, once other teams with more money do it, the comparative avdantage is lost - and Beane will have to adapt again.

Thanks, Bob and Jim. By the way, there are times that I think that Showalter could have won a World Series title in New York -- at least until I stumble upon his so-called "analysis" on BBTN. Ugh!

Off to a meeting! :-(

Jim, I think JE's point is he'd rather have 1st and 2nd with one out than a man on 3rd with two outs. So would I. Plus yes he'd be thrown out, but he can get into a rundown and the guy from 2nd can go to 3rd on occassion.

JE, I agree hustle and fundamentals were not the only factors. The A's seemed to choke in a big spot. The GM should have realized this and got a veteran winner on that team. I often bring Kirk Gibson's name up in these type of situations, because as great as Orel was in 88, they never would have had a chance without Gibson's leadership.

As for Johnstone in the Naked Gun...I almost died from crying while watching that scene. I'm not even joking. I was laughing so hard I started to cry and started to choke. If they do a Naked Gun 4, Carlos Beltran will be the batter that looks at three straight strikes down the middle!

If you look to compare Torre to any manager, compare him to Casey Stengel. Another unsuccessful manager everywhere except for the period he managed the Yankees. Another manager who lacked strategic skills and many say didn't get along too well with some of his star players (unlike Torre). I don't think much of Torre as a strategic manager, and his robotic like decision making works very well with a team of highly paid all-stars. Doesn't work so well in LA St.Louis and Atlanta and young, terrible Mets.
As far as what Beane does, and if the stat is correct that he breaks up the team every 2 or 3 years or so, that correlates to arbitration time and makes me think he has a budget to adhere to first and foremost, even though Ken's stats say his payroll has more than tripled in nine seasons. It looks like next season it will be way down and probably this season is way down too. To have that success with a team budgeted in the lower third of all baseball is somewhat remarkable (and the division is usually not very strong), but a lot of that might have been managing and coaching the young players, and not all Beane's personnel decision making.

The A's put together a great team of 3 and 4 tool players and young quality starters. Unfortunately, it appears that during crunch time, those 1 or 2 missing tools were highlighted. (I still can't explain Jeremy Giambi not sliding).

Who will be the veteran who steps up for the Mets when things are tough or a losing streak needs to be stopped? Was anything learned during last year's flameout?

Will Enrico Palazzo sing the Star Spangled Banner to close down Shea?

As for Torre...that guy will go down as the most UNDERRATED manager ever in my book. Look at the 86' Mets. They had as much talent as anybody but Davey Johnson couldn't hold that team together. That happens a lot in sports. Ego's take over and a great group of talent goes down the drain. Torre didn't let that happen.

Eventually, they brought in too many non-team-first players and Torre couldn't handle them. I felt he wasn't the right guy for awhile. But to hold that group of elite players together for six years (96-02) without any type of mutiny is rare in these days. Anyone of us could have filled in the lineup card, but very few people could have made sure all their egos fit in one room. Torre should get a lot of credit for that.

RG - Gotcha. I thought the gist was to get the run home from third. I understand now it was to better position the other two runners. Great if it works out. Not so great if no one ends up on third.

Torre UNDERRATED? You're kidding, right? Were you watching from 2002 - 2007?

Did anyone catch Ed Randall on his radio show yesterday morning interviewing Eric Harding "Rick" Petersen? Very , very interesting.

Jim, I'm sorry, but to judge a general manager by how many
World Series he has won is intellectually dishonest. The postseason is barely 4 weeks. The regular season is six months. Postseason series can turn so quickly - like when bugs attack Joba Chamberlain, and he records his first major-league blown save. No good organization makes evaulations baed on the postseason. I agree with Schuerholz's basic point, if not his arrogance - reaching the postseason is the true challenge. Note how only the Yankees made the postseason in both '06 and '07.

As for Torre, I'm going to point this out again: During the '06 -'01 run, he repeatedly pointed out how much the Yankees benefited from luck in October. When he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in March 1999, he said something to the effect of, "Now I know why we got all of those lucky bounces."

I think "crapshoot" is too strong a term for the baseball postseason. But obviously, the smaller the sample size, the more luck is going to play a factor.

baileywalk, I don't think you're being entirely fair to Beane. He's basically had two periods where he really blew up the team via trade: After '04, when he dealt away Hudson and Zito, and during the past seven months, when he's traded Haren, Harden and Blanton. He's trying to put together a team that can have the sort of run they did from '99 through '04.

Jim, I'd rather have 1st and 2nd and one out than just a man on 3rd with two outs. 50% of the time a guy scores from 2nd on a single, so those 50% it doesn't matter. And if you really want that man on third, you can just bunt the runners over. Though no one would ever do that because its just dumb.

As for Torre...re-read what I said. I said he was the perfect manager for the 96-01 teams. But because people are starting to remember him for the 02-07 teams, he is becoming vastly underrated for what he did the previous years. Managing isn't about managing the game anymore. It's managing the players.

And Bob...RAUL IBANEZ!!!! He was lead us to Victory!!! Mets in 3! Mets in 5! Mets in 4! That's the playoffs. My prediction. And the only reason the Mets in 5 is because Raul is going to go on Operation Shutdown on Game 4 until he receives his much deserved contract extension!

RG - I meant 2004-07. I thought Torre had teams that were good enough to go further. He couldn't get them there. Joe did a good job in New York and deserves a great deal of credit for all the championships. He was the right man at the time. But, clearly a change was needed. There was no easy way to handle it. The Steinbrenners should have just said, "Joe you did a great job and we appreciate everything, but at this point, we feel it is time for a change." It continues to irk me that Torre wanted a new 3 year deal with big numbers.

Ken, I am missing something: What exactly do we judge a GM on? His regular season W-L record?

Just because Torre credited luck during the 1996-01 run doesn't mean the Yankees won because they were lucky. Luck seems to help great teams more than mediocre teams. Great teams seem to be in a position to generate luck. I am again missing your point. The Yankees won the championships because they were lucky?

Oh, and I meant Rick Peterson, who denied having anything to do with the Zambrano-Kazmir

That's it for me. I am going to try and lie low for a while and let others pontificate.

Terry Francona did nothing with the Phillies. They never came close to the playoffs. Then all of a sudden he goes to the Red Sox after Grady Little spit the bit agianst the Yanks in the 2003 ALCS, and Francona wins 2 World Series in 4 years. Now Francona is getting all the attention like Torre did when he won 4 World Series. He too came at the right place at the right time.
The 2000 Yanks lost 15 of their last 18 games heading into the playoffs, but then beat the A's in 5, the Mariners in 6, and the Mets in 5 to win the World Series. Just goes to show you that a team can catch fire when the postseason begins.

Jim: Of course we judge a GM on his regular-season won-loss record. Yes, the ultimate goal is to win the World Series, but again - a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars doesn't make evaluations based on less than one month of results. The Braves never considered firing Schuerholz and Cox despite the October disappointments, because they were (are, Cox's case) outstanding at what they do.

Once again: I'm not saying that Luck was the #1 factor behind the successes of '96-'01 and the disappointments of the subsequent years. But I'm saying it was A factor, undoubtedly. Luck is luck. It doesn't "help great teams more than mediocre teams." It's a coin flip.

Were the Yankees already great when Jeffrey Maier made his catch? No...and if Rich Garcia makes the right call there, the Yankees might have been down, 1-0, to a surging Orioles team. And so on...

I should add that, the smaller the sample size, the greater a factor everything becomes - not just luck, but also hustle, as our man Richie pointed out, and as Dennis, our Dan Quayle of spelling, puts it, "heart, grid and guts."

RG: Keep dreaming - I fear that you'll have to settle Fernando Tatis - or Julio Franco's grandson.

Ken: first - a belated full disclosure - Schulerholz traded me, so I am not unbiased, so any comments made regarding his comments are to be filtered.

Ask fans what they want - a miracle title once a decade and linited playoff appearances or the heartbreak of losing in the playoffs every year? Most surveys say they want the title. If you want fans and TV eyes to generate revenue, you eventually have to win something. Otherwise, the teams (part of the service industry) will lose attendance, ratings will drop and you have a self-fulfilling prophecy - less money and mandatory Moneyball.

If no good organization makes evaluations on the playoffs, why did the Mets overpay for Carlos Beltran - or are the Mets not a good organization?

I can't see Bill Russell, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan or Vince Lombardi buying into the "horseshoes and hand grenades" definition of sports success. It sounds like a Phil Mickleson/ARod kind of statement.

Luck seems to help great teams more than mediocre teams because great teams are in a position to be helped. Luck gets lost in the shuffle with a mediocre team.

If the goal is to win the World Series, then the post season must get factored in when evaluating managers, GMs, etc. New York can't be compared to anywhere else in the country. Torre is gone because the Yankees couldn't get out of the first round. As much as the Steinbrenners wanted him gone, he would still be here if they went to the World Series. Cashman has also been on the ropes from time to time because they haven't "won." The fact he doesn't appear to be now might have more to do with a clear lack of a possible successor than anything else. Yes, someone will fill the position, but will that person be an improvement?

Bob...coudln't agree more with your luck arguments. Yes Greg Norman got unlucky yesterday that two of his balls lipped out. But had he hit it dead center, it wouldn't have. Tiger hits it dead center.

And Ken...the Mets were tied with the Red Sox when Billy Bucks made the error. The US had to beat Finland to win the Gold in 80. And Jeffrey Maier DROPPED the ball!! It drives me crazy that he keeps getting credit for making the catch. He didn't! Sorry...I know what you meant, but its just one of those things for me. (And the other two references are common misconceptions)

Ken...your son has a good point re: the iPod...as George Carlin often asked...why do we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway.

Bob, first of all, I was referring to decisions on GMs and managers, not as much players. But I think it's pretty apparent that the Mets did overpay for Beltran based on his once-in-a-lifetime October 2004 - and that, yes, a smarter organization wouldn't have done that.

You write this, Bob:

Ask fans what they want - a miracle title once a decade and linited playoff appearances or the heartbreak of losing in the playoffs every year? Most surveys say they want the title.

But how do you guarantee them that one title a decade? You can't. Your best shot is to make the playoffs every single year.

Jim: The abstract goal of any team, regardless of the sport, is to win it all. BUT...because teams understand how much myriad factors come into play, the concrete goal is to make the playoffs every year.

The Yankees didn't want Torre gone because of the three straight, first-round losses. They wanted him gone because of office politics (he and Levine hated each other) and process (Cashman wanted someone more in sync with modern baseball thinking). The results gave them leverage.

Go back to Grady Little in '03 with the Red Sox. Management loathed him. He wasn't fired because he kept Pedro in ALCS Game 7. The loss in that game, again, gave them leverage.

Richie, my bad on Jeff Maier. But you get my point.

Ken, I know this is technical and all, but Little wasn't fired. His contract wasn't renewed. As a public policy consultant, I would like to think that, when an occasional gig isn't renewed, it's not because I totally screwed up my client's pitch count! ;-)

Bob, as a relative newcomer to this site, I look forward to hearing more stories about your professional baseball experiences.

I find it funny that Schuerholz and Beane both decry their playoff luck, even though the former went out of his way in his autobiography to bad-mouth "Moneyball", and to a degree, Billy's way of doing business.

Regarding Carlos Beltran, he was the best position player free agent available after the 2004 season, just as Pedro was the best pitcher on the free agent market. (I remember someone at BP pointing out that, if you want to sign free agents, it is far preferable to sign the very best or the ones that are on the scrap heap and avoid like the plague the guys in between.) Yes, Carlos was also judged in part by his out-of-this-world numbers with Houston, but now his "clutchness" is also defined by his Jay Johnstonesque at-bat against Adam Wainwright in the 2006 NLCS. (Again, I would argue that, unless your name is David Ortiz, clutchness is mostly random.)

I agree with Jim in that we cannot compare the Bay Area and New York when it comes to building a team. However, some of this New York craziness is self-inflicted. Keep in mind that it was only in the late 90s that someone on the Yankees (was it Jeter?) came up with the "brilliant" concept that anything less than a World Series title meant that the season was a FAILURE. Never mind what that says to young kids playing little league; it also soils what are otherwise outstanding reputations just because they are in a slump at the absolute worst time.

Oops! Those "anonymous" comments above are mine. My bad.

Bob, I think it has become very clear over a period of decades, the Mets have not been a very well run organization. And they have had good people running things for long periods, Cashen, Hunsenker. But M. Donald Grant ran them into the ground, the Wilpons took over and really, really have had less success than Joan Payson and George Weiss had. And an equal amount of embarassing situations that Lorinda deRoulet had during her brief tenure as owner. I mean you can look at some of their decsions and see they are poorly run. Howe, Phillips, firing Valentine (although it was probably time), Willie, Minaya, Bonilla, Coleman, Beltran etc.

So under Bob's theory, one of the best run organizations in the last 10 years is the Florida Marlins because they won two titles?

They certainly know how to scout.

Ken (and Matt) :

My hypothetical was in relation to fan's desires - would they trade competitive for #1 - and the answer would be yes.

And give the Marlins some credit - they beat those high quality Braves in '97 on the way to their WS title, did a fire sale and came back to win in 2003 (Oakland has rebuilt in a similar fashion without a title).

My bias is that I still equate greatness with winning - at every opportunity. If managementt dumbs-down success (doing better than statistically possible as the organization goal) in a self-esteem society and announces publicly that "the playoffs are a ***** crapshoot", what message do players take from that?

Bah! Schuerholz' book was titled "Built to Win". You can find it on the discount table every October.

--

PS - And how did Schuerholz' '85 Royals win their World Series title? A blown call by Don Denkinger in Game 6 - luck! (You could make an argument that the strike season win in 1995 by the Braves was in the "unusual circumstances" category, too)

Bob, how would you define the Brooklyn Dodgers teams of the late 40s and 50s? Remember: there was no NLDS/NLCS back in the day and, yet, the club was able to notch only one World Championship. Still, was that not a great club? If not, what was lacking?

They were the second best team in baseball in an era where the # 1 team was vastly superior to the other 15 clubs and in the process of reeling off five consecutive World Series titles (1949-53).

They lost most of those series becuase they were simply the inferior team to one of the great sports dynasties.

Mike Francesca just noted that Cancel committed "a bonehead play" and "a terrible job" by not breaking from third in the 10th inning yesterday. It's really true: even a broken clock is right twice twice a day! ;-)

JE, please find me the other Francesca reference where he is right today.

Bob, the world is spinning...I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying. But wasn't the 95 strike really a lockout? Just curious, but I like when things are right.

Ken, wasn't giving you a hard time with Maeir...but it annoyed me then that he was considered a hero and it annoys me now that he got credit for the catch. The kid turned out to be a good player though and from what I can tell...a standup guy. He doesn't like that he interfered now that he's older.

Say what you want about Florida...but they can draft with the best of them and when they got a chance, they seal the deal. Plus they've thrown like 10 no-hitters and have as many WS as the Mets!

The Kansas City Royals in the 70's and 80's under George Brett remind me of the A's under Billy Beane. The Royals from 1976 to 1978 lost to the Yanks in the ALCS. Finish 2nd in '79, '82 and '83. Finally beat the Yanks in '80 but lost to the Phillies in the World Series. Lost to the A's in the strike shorten season in the first round in '81. Lost to a great Tigers team in '84. But then finally winning it all in '85 coming back from 3-1 down to the Blue Jays in the ALCS and 3-1 down to the Cardinals in the World Series, with help from Don Deckinger in Game 6.

Richie, now you're being cruel! Actually, Francesca might have also said something to the effect that the Mets cannot win without more power in the corner outfield slots. We can't argue too much with that two-bit assessment, right?

The time without baseball in 1994-95, all 232 days, was a strike related to the owner's desire to implement a salary cap.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor issued an injunction against the owners for not bargaining in good faith (due to wanting to use replacement players) and the season started in 1995 in late April.

Richie G. (Lynbrook), The Marlins are like the A's in that they develop young players. Then when they get closer to being free agents, the Marlins would trade them for young players or let them go and take the draft picks. The Marlins, unlike the A's have won 2 world championships, but they have not been able to get a new stadium just like the A's. The Marlins seem more closer to get a new stadium, but its far from a sure thing. I give the Marlins credit for signing Hanley Ramirez to long term deal.

Ken, I wrote this:

Torre is gone because the Yankees couldn't get out of the first round. As much as the Steinbrenners wanted him gone, he would still be here if they went to the World Series.

Ken, you wrote this:

The Yankees didn't want Torre gone because of the three straight, first-round losses. They wanted him gone because of office politics (he and Levine hated each other) and process (Cashman wanted someone more in sync with modern baseball thinking). The results gave them leverage.

I didn't say he was gone primarily for losing three straight years in the first round. I understand all about the politics and the bitterness the Steinbrenners felt over his salary. My point was that Torre was essentially fired because the Yankees could get away with it due to the team not getting out of the first round. If he managed a World Series champion, they wouldn't have been able to touch him - again. Winning matters, especialy in NYC. Am I explaining it any better?

I once hung a sign up in the wrestling room: "Luck is a lazy man's description for a hard worker's success." It might not be entirely fitting for the discussion we have had, but there certainly is some truth to it.

As noted earlier, Jim, I agree with the message on the wrestling room sign, just as I concur with Branch Rickey's "luck is the residue of resign" mantra. However, no one would ever suggest that the Reds or Pirates are better than the Yankees just because both teams won two of three this season. And just as three games over the course of 162 is not a sufficient sample size, I cannot believe that a lack of "grit" or "heart" helps explain why the lesser team occasionally wins a best-of-five or best-of-seven postgame series.

By the way, Ken or anyone else, is it true that Joe Morgan, who helped call the home run derby for ESPN, was unable to stick around to take part in the pre-game festivities the following day??? That's kind of strange, don't you think?

This is a wonderful example of laziness in sports journalism: http://vegaswatch.net/2008/07/youre-not-even-trying.html. Enjoy!

JE - This might all be about semantics today. What you describe in your best of five and best of seven scenarios I would attribute to a team getting hot at just the right time. That's not necessarily luck, but it is lucky. Any team got play excellent ball for short stretches - say a week. I acknowledge that. To deny it would be folly. So, yes, the Yankees benefitted by luck in so far as during the championships years they didn't hit that losing streak in the post season or face a team that was hot or on a roll.

Maybe we all agree more so than we realize?

Well, off to a charity dinner. Hey, I promised to stop posting for the next week.

Ken, I agree that "Moneyball" sometimes eschewed complexities in the interest of telling a more fluid and entertaining tale. I enjoyed the stories on Hatteberg, Bradford, and Jeremy Brown, as these players' varying degrees of success defied conventional wisdom. (It is convenient to forget that Brown quit baseball for personal reasons and he had a quite successful final year at AAA.)

More importantly, I am grateful to Michael Lewis for opening my eyes to the importance of bucking the amen crowd and taking advantage of market inefficiencies, which I try to exploit in my professional career.

Jim, yes, we agree on the Torre point - which goes back to my ORIGINAL point, that the Yankees were not so stupid as to think, "Joe Torre can't get us out of the first round. Let's get him out of here." They had more legitimate reasons for wanting him out. Although, ironically, that's how they presented it to the public, pretty much, when they were defending their ridiculous, one-year offer.

Richie, I know what you're saying, but it couldn't be less relevant to this discussion whether Maier caught the ball or not. But now I promise never to make that mistake again ;)

Bob, I'm sorry that Schuerholz traded you, but come on now. The guy remade that Braves team how many times over? And still won the division, year after year after year. He is a Hall of Fame executive. You can't "build" a World Series winner. You just can't. There's no magic formula.

Ken, you know how pet peeves are. That is one of mine (the three misconceptions). But my tone was a peaceful one.

JE, your link didn't work.

Bob Tufts, my insiders say Ken is thinking of trading you to Neil Best. So you better back off!

http://vegaswatch.net/2008/07/youre-not-even-trying.html

Thanks for the heads-up, Richie. The link above should work now.

Ken:

I'm not really mad at Schuerholz for trading me. I'm just a full disclousre freak.

I believe that the Schuerholz and Beane discussion is like our earlier conversation on stats - there are many ways to enjoy baseball, and there are many different ways to approach winning. Just don't believe your press clippings that you and you only possess the truth. At one time, we were enthralled by the Dodger way (all pitching and defense). next came Earl Weaver and the 3 run homer crowd.

Schuerholz did a great job adding that one player pre-season and another key acquisition at the deadline. Beane cobbled together a competitive team for an extended period despite not being able to add those kinds of players. If they switched organizations, which one would be more successful?

As you stated, there is no magic formula. You need to avoid injuries (luck?), you need all players to perform at or near their expected means (fortune?) and you need other teams to play at or below their capability (out of your control). And you need pitchers to go at least 7 innings in the playoff games (next to impossible to predict)

I'm a 5 amd 10 year man and refuse a trade to Best - I will only accept Fire Joe Morgan or BBTF.

You guys are all untouchable! No trades!

Ken:

Richie G will be placed in charge of negotiating our new collective bargaining agreement!

What were those chocolate things you promised us?

Let me point out the "Boys of Summer" did have some real bad breaks that could easily in some championships before 1955.
1941 Leo Durocher plays game with his starting staff by not not pitching 20 game winners Wyatt and Higbe as much as possible. He gives Game 1 start to veteran Davis (hoping to recreate Ehmke in 1929) who loses a close game. Fat Freddie Fitzsimmons is matching Russo in 0-0 tie cwhen a Croetti line drive off his leg forces him to leave. Reliever Casey allows two runs and they lose. In Game 4 there is famous "passed ball on game ending strikeout" by Mickey Owen. Durocher doesn't go to mound to calm Casey down, Yankees rally for 4 runs and the win.
1947. Left fielder Gene Hermanski misplays a ball in game 7 into a double. (left field in Yankee Stadium was brutal sun field. Babe Ruth had pull and refused to play it) allowing go ahead winning run to score. One of the chroniclers of this period (probably Roger Kahn but could be Robert Creamer) thought Kindly Old Burt Shotton made some mistakes handling the staff. Series was high scoring affair forcing many pitching changes, No days off for "travel" in this era. I can't remember what they were but Shotton was manager because Leo Durocher was suspended for associating with shady characters (you don't say. Not Leo.) Not that Durocher was necessarily going to make the right moves, but lots more teams wanted him as manager than Shotton.
1950. Cal Abrams is thrown out at plate by weak armed Richie Ashburn. Phillies win the pennant on a Sisler home run. Dodger third base coach is fired.
1951 Besides the whole decision about bringing in Branca to face Thomson when Thomson homered off him two days earlier. The bullpen coach got fired for recommending Branca instead of Erskine. Gil Hodges is needlessly holding runner at first and allows hit to go where he would normally be standing. Giants have infamous sign stealing system that year.
1952: Head up play by Billy Martin in Game 7 to catch Robinson's infield fly that first baseman Collins loses in sun. Bases loaded and two outs so runners are going. Yankees hold on to lead and go on to win. In game 4 Dodger manager Charlie Dressen signals suicide squeeze play with runners on second and third trailing 0-1. He forgets that he used the same signs he used managing the Oakland Oaks in 1949 when his second baseman was Billy Martin. Martin recognizes sign, signals Yogi to call high pitch, Black can't bunt down and Shuba is caught stealing.

I don't think it is unreasonable to say a couple things could have easily gone different for the Dodgers just as they could have for the A's in this decade. I don't think anyone has mentioned it here but haven't the Minnesota Twins under Terry Ryan have pretty much duplicated Beane's result to widespread praise and no "what has he won?" Which he deserves just as much as Beane. I shouldn't take clowns like Chris Russo seriously but when he says "why doesn't some one write a book on Beane and not on that fellow in Minnesota who has won" is he aware of this? Unless he means Andy MacPhail who won twice 20 years ago.