The A's 'invented' Moneyball, never won a World Series with it, watched other teams take it farther than they could, and simply decided to consider the postseason failures as an 'inconvenience'. If you, at *some* point, don't get angry with incessant ALCS Game 5 losses, then you're a failure.
Nice analysis. The secret to "moneyball" is and always was developing your own players. There was a tiny window in which Oakland was using better stats to evaluate players, but if it didn't coincide with elite young talent emerging from their farm system, it wouldn't have meant a thing.
The A’s version of moneyball will never win titles. Their player evaluation is fine, but when they discourage things like stolen bases and bunting they run into trouble against playoff caliber pitching. If I’m playing 3B I never have to worry about fielding a bunt and can take a couple steps back. Walks are great, but with a RISP and two outs, you need a hit. Their strategy gets them lots of regular season wins, but crumbles against great postseason pitching.
And Beane just shrugged it all off. He thought the postseason was an 'unfair' assessment, because the short-series format was 'random'. And yet, the teams they played in those 'random short series' just won, without whining about the format.'Oh, I wish we could have beaten them in a seven-game series'.
@@trwent And once they gave themselves the chance, they missed all but a handful of chances...just enough to lose in five games, four years in a row, with mind-numbing sameness.
@@trwent yes, their strategy worked over the course of the regular season because they are also competing against teams with bad pitching and defense. That strategy didn’t work against teams that could manufacture runs and put aces on the hill with great command. They had Zito, Mulder and Hudson pitching together for 5 years and couldn’t get out of the first round.
In a way, it sort of has, Schott & Hofmann basically sold the team in 2005 because it looked like a good purchase for Fisher at the time. However the new owner will not just going to spend lots of money if the "moneyball" model works. Schott and Hofmann swindled Fisher.
'Moneyball' was always exaggerated. The main reason the As were good in the early noughts was that 3 days out of 5 they could send an ace pitcher to the mound. Acquiring Hudson, Mulder and Zito wasn't a product of Moneyball, it was mainly luck.
The Moneyball Movie: "The 2002 A's won 103 games because Scott Hatteberg walked and Chad Bradford threw weird!" MVP Miguel Tejada and CY Young winner Barry Zito, plus Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder: "We helped a little." Why don't more teams imitate the 2010-2014 "even-year" Giants? It's not like they bought those teams. Well, they did give Zito that big deal (ironically), but he was awful for them. And unless he also slugs, why would a hitter with a low average draw a ton of walks and have a high OBP? They're not going to pitch around him. Eddie Yost was the only guy I can think of who could consistently just walk despite not hitting for average or power.
It took awhile but Moneyball really changed baseball If you stopped following around 2004 and just got back into it today youd be overwhelmed by all the numbers Also still can't get used to watching power hitters bat leadoff or number 2 There were some things you didn't think would ever change because they didn't like a century
The problem with any Moneyball strategy is that even if it works initially, richer teams will eventually adopt the same system and do it better due to having more working capital.
To an extent. Moneyball at its core (ignoring the cheap owners) is trying to find market inefficiencies and exploiting them. There are always going to be ways that big market teams waste money or miss undervalued aspects of the game. You could argue that the market gets more and more efficient, but there are always gaps.
Sadly, they've also not raised the team payroll in nearly 20 years and their richest contract is still Chavez back in the mid-2000's... I think Fisher now is just looking to move.. just to move. Oakland fans supported the team while they tried but they haven't tried in 8 years or more now.
@@InDepthBaseballYT I just compare to what it was then.. vs what it is now.. and look at the rest of the league.. back then.. even the Yanks were just over 100M.. now, only 2 teams may not be.. and Oakland is still paying what they did back then.. ~50-70M for the team.. Oakland is paying less than what the Dodgers are actually giving to Ohtani...again.. they are no longer trying..
I have to point out- Billy Beane didn’t invent the Moneyball concept per se. Sandy Alderson and Walt Jocketty established its beginnings when they were GM and assistant GM in Oakland prior to Beane’s promotion EDIT: And if you really wanna go back, Branch Rickey ran a proto-Moneyball back when he was running the Brooklyn Dodgers and hired Allan Roth as a statistician
It's not surprising that a small, weak market like Oakland has had consistent losing teams. The way Baseball works it is so much easier to be in a market with lots of money available.
Today's A's collapse has nothing to do with moneyball. It has to do with the owner. BUT Moneyball did hurt the A's in the post season. I wrote an article on it showing why. The A's were great at drafting and getting young players. Problem is when they wanted big money they couldn't afford them anymore. With moneyball though in the regular season the A's relied on OB% which was greatly enhanced by HR's and walks. In the post season the pitching is far better and what are the two things that are harder to come by in the playoffs? Walks and Home runs. The A's did NOT manufacture runs. The way to beat the A's was simple. No walks and limit the hr's. During the regular season, many of the games the A's lost they had few walks or hr's. The games that they were given walks and home runs, they usually won. The problem is when you are in the playoffs those don't happen a lot so you need to steal bases and hit in the clutch with runners in scoring position and low avg. players don't often do it. How many times in the playoffs did Eric Chavez, or many of the other stars not hit with RISP. So many times. While the teams that had an expensive payroll, had guys that walked but they also could hit.
Hypothetical statistics can't replace talent. Good players are always better than hypothetical analytics. When the As have been good over the last 20 years, it was with a core of good players they developed and were controllable. Yes moneyball can help support a core, but you cant build a team with it.
I was never a big fan of money ball. Too me it was all a gimmick. Once I saw the cheap Kansas city royals win a world series and make it to back to back world series then I knew A's were not all that special. A very good farm system but the A's lack long term vision. Look how Tampa Bay can remain competitive for over a decade and make world series appearances with one of the lowest pay rolls in baseball. There is something the Rays, Royals are doing correctly vs. the Oakland Athletics
@@jonathangasana ANd notice how the A's has not won the pennant once since money ball. Results matter. Yanks, Redsox, Astros Giants and even the Dodgers laugh at Oakland. Billy Beane even made fun of the Mets and guess what even the Mets won a pennant in that time. The A's have accomplished Jack S****
@@kenw2225 Answer me this Batman? why do those other teams have success where the Oakland A's have been failures for the past decade!? Maybe just maybe there is more to creating a competitive team then just sabermetrics or Money ball theory 🤔
The strategy used for Moneyball was due to a shitty budget so they had to work with it, that's WHY it was used, it didn't ruin anything. They had 20 straight Wins as one of the lowest budget teams.
Sadly the wait it is now (to some degree but at large) $$$$$$$$$$$ wins baseball. Edit:$$$$$$ and no cap ruins baseball as a competitive sport as far as WS go. Edit2: the Astros were cheating in 2017.
As a Yankees fan, I have watched them spend tons of money this millennium only to get bounced by "poorer" teams in the playoffs. They have two World Series from 2000 on, but the first one was really more the result of what they had built pre-mega-deal era (not that they were poor then), largely by the great Gene Michael. The 2009 World Series relied on big contracts, but considering how many of the big contracts they gave out before and after were massive disappointments, it was a pathetic return on investment. The Dodgers seem like they are now trying their best to outdo the Yankees in this regard. Each year a new superstar, and still only one 60-game-fan-less-pandemic-season World Series to show for it. Always being bounced by "lesser" teams. The moral of the story? Money doesn't mean much if the organization doesn't know how to spend it wisely or properly utilize what they spent it on.
This video is trash. I can name a dozen players right now that are exciting A's. They built it again, its not a surprise every team has a cycle of succuss every few years. Langeliers, Gelof, Rooker, Miller, Bleday, Butler, Ruiz, McCann, Soderstrom, Wilson, Estes. Hell even Abraham Toro is a very decent ball player. Love the As and thats not even my team.
John Fisher is the person we hate! We love the A’s! At least get your main facts straight before you make a video like this. Clickbait inaccurate nothing burger. #goballers
The A's 'invented' Moneyball, never won a World Series with it, watched other teams take it farther than they could, and simply decided to consider the postseason failures as an 'inconvenience'. If you, at *some* point, don't get angry with incessant ALCS Game 5 losses, then you're a failure.
Well you’re acting as if the true inventor Beane not being a major part of other teams success with it
Nice analysis. The secret to "moneyball" is and always was developing your own players. There was a tiny window in which Oakland was using better stats to evaluate players, but if it didn't coincide with elite young talent emerging from their farm system, it wouldn't have meant a thing.
Absolutely. And not enough credit is given to their elite development that came in the late 90s
The A’s version of moneyball will never win titles. Their player evaluation is fine, but when they discourage things like stolen bases and bunting they run into trouble against playoff caliber pitching. If I’m playing 3B I never have to worry about fielding a bunt and can take a couple steps back.
Walks are great, but with a RISP and two outs, you need a hit. Their strategy gets them lots of regular season wins, but crumbles against great postseason pitching.
And Beane just shrugged it all off. He thought the postseason was an 'unfair' assessment, because the short-series format was 'random'. And yet, the teams they played in those 'random short series' just won, without whining about the format.'Oh, I wish we could have beaten them in a seven-game series'.
They did what they had to do to get into the postseason. You first have to GET there to have a chance to win.
@@trwent And once they gave themselves the chance, they missed all but a handful of chances...just enough to lose in five games, four years in a row, with mind-numbing sameness.
@@trwent yes, their strategy worked over the course of the regular season because they are also competing against teams with bad pitching and defense. That strategy didn’t work against teams that could manufacture runs and put aces on the hill with great command.
They had Zito, Mulder and Hudson pitching together for 5 years and couldn’t get out of the first round.
This. Agree.
Moneyball didn't "ruin" Oakland, but was a tactic Billy Beane had to use because ownership didn't want to spend money.
Exactly! WTF the title of this video makes no sense
In a way, it sort of has, Schott & Hofmann basically sold the team in 2005 because it looked like a good purchase for Fisher at the time. However the new owner will not just going to spend lots of money if the "moneyball" model works. Schott and Hofmann swindled Fisher.
Ownerships abuse of the moneyball idea is how it ruined them
Yea and now gave boston the bright idea to do the same thing even though they have infinite money
Wtf!!
'Moneyball' was always exaggerated. The main reason the As were good in the early noughts was that 3 days out of 5 they could send an ace pitcher to the mound. Acquiring Hudson, Mulder and Zito wasn't a product of Moneyball, it was mainly luck.
The Moneyball Movie: "The 2002 A's won 103 games because Scott Hatteberg walked and Chad Bradford threw weird!"
MVP Miguel Tejada and CY Young winner Barry Zito, plus Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder: "We helped a little."
Why don't more teams imitate the 2010-2014 "even-year" Giants? It's not like they bought those teams. Well, they did give Zito that big deal (ironically), but he was awful for them.
And unless he also slugs, why would a hitter with a low average draw a ton of walks and have a high OBP? They're not going to pitch around him. Eddie Yost was the only guy I can think of who could consistently just walk despite not hitting for average or power.
Went on to "enhance" his workout routines had me dying lol
#legalizeroids
@@InDepthBaseballYT eh roids got too many side effects. Now if they made something that made injuries go way down I would be very down with that.
It took awhile but Moneyball really changed baseball
If you stopped following around 2004 and just got back into it today youd be overwhelmed by all the numbers
Also still can't get used to watching power hitters bat leadoff or number 2
There were some things you didn't think would ever change because they didn't like a century
It really is crazy how fast it has changed
The problem with any Moneyball strategy is that even if it works initially, richer teams will eventually adopt the same system and do it better due to having more working capital.
Exactly
To an extent. Moneyball at its core (ignoring the cheap owners) is trying to find market inefficiencies and exploiting them. There are always going to be ways that big market teams waste money or miss undervalued aspects of the game. You could argue that the market gets more and more efficient, but there are always gaps.
Isn't that how ALL competitive things work? It isn't just the Moneyball strat.
1:50 Mark McGwire "... went on to enhance his workout program..." 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The goal of every front office should be to win the world series. Not increase valuation.
this is an amazing video man, love this format and storytelling please post more of these!!
Really appreciate this my guy
Sadly, they've also not raised the team payroll in nearly 20 years and their richest contract is still Chavez back in the mid-2000's... I think Fisher now is just looking to move.. just to move. Oakland fans supported the team while they tried but they haven't tried in 8 years or more now.
adjusting for inflation, the payroll is actually worse now than in the 2000s I believe
@@InDepthBaseballYT I just compare to what it was then.. vs what it is now.. and look at the rest of the league.. back then.. even the Yanks were just over 100M.. now, only 2 teams may not be.. and Oakland is still paying what they did back then.. ~50-70M for the team.. Oakland is paying less than what the Dodgers are actually giving to Ohtani...again.. they are no longer trying..
It’s STILL Chavez?! Wow.
Well, technically, the ownership is why the A's were ruined. But, I await to see what you gotta say
Really nice vid keep up the good work!!!!
Correction. Houston wasn't Moneyball on steroids. It was Moneyball with a garbage can😂
It’s honestly wild how much success this team has had over the last 25 years.
That shot at Mark McGuire, saying he enhanced his workout program lol
I have to point out- Billy Beane didn’t invent the Moneyball concept per se. Sandy Alderson and Walt Jocketty established its beginnings when they were GM and assistant GM in Oakland prior to Beane’s promotion
EDIT: And if you really wanna go back, Branch Rickey ran a proto-Moneyball back when he was running the Brooklyn Dodgers and hired Allan Roth as a statistician
The movie was garbage and did a hatchet job on Art Howe, a class guy and solid baseball man.
It's not surprising that a small, weak market like Oakland has had consistent losing teams. The way Baseball works it is so much easier to be in a market with lots of money available.
14:47 what is the music that begins to play in this section?
I’ve been a life long A’s fan, and I will love them forever, but f*ck John Fisher
Grew up in the bay area and making this video brought a lot of nostalgia back despite not being an A’s fan
Today's A's collapse has nothing to do with moneyball. It has to do with the owner. BUT Moneyball did hurt the A's in the post season. I wrote an article on it showing why. The A's were great at drafting and getting young players. Problem is when they wanted big money they couldn't afford them anymore. With moneyball though in the regular season the A's relied on OB% which was greatly enhanced by HR's and walks. In the post season the pitching is far better and what are the two things that are harder to come by in the playoffs? Walks and Home runs. The A's did NOT manufacture runs. The way to beat the A's was simple. No walks and limit the hr's. During the regular season, many of the games the A's lost they had few walks or hr's. The games that they were given walks and home runs, they usually won. The problem is when you are in the playoffs those don't happen a lot so you need to steal bases and hit in the clutch with runners in scoring position and low avg. players don't often do it. How many times in the playoffs did Eric Chavez, or many of the other stars not hit with RISP. So many times. While the teams that had an expensive payroll, had guys that walked but they also could hit.
love this content bruh keep it up!
Thank you man. It means a lot
Hypothetical statistics can't replace talent. Good players are always better than hypothetical analytics. When the As have been good over the last 20 years, it was with a core of good players they developed and were controllable. Yes moneyball can help support a core, but you cant build a team with it.
Moneyball ideas are not hypothetical stats tho
I was never a big fan of money ball. Too me it was all a gimmick. Once I saw the cheap Kansas city royals win a world series and make it to back to back world series then I knew A's were not all that special. A very good farm system but the A's lack long term vision. Look how Tampa Bay can remain competitive for over a decade and make world series appearances with one of the lowest pay rolls in baseball. There is something the Rays, Royals are doing correctly vs. the Oakland Athletics
A gimmick???? WTF are you talking about? Every team has adopted this philosophy in one way or another from the Oakland A’s.
@@jonathangasana ANd notice how the A's has not won the pennant once since money ball. Results matter.
Yanks, Redsox, Astros Giants and even the Dodgers laugh at Oakland.
Billy Beane even made fun of the Mets and guess what even the Mets won a pennant in that time.
The A's have accomplished Jack S****
The rays and royals copied the "gimmick". Lol wtf
@@kenw2225 Answer me this Batman? why do those other teams have success where the Oakland A's have been failures for the past decade!?
Maybe just maybe there is more to creating a competitive team then just sabermetrics or Money ball theory 🤔
The playoffs are a total crapshoot. In a sample size of 5-7 games anything can happen
The strategy used for Moneyball was due to a shitty budget so they had to work with it, that's WHY it was used, it didn't ruin anything. They had 20 straight Wins as one of the lowest budget teams.
Other teams would have started using the moneyball strategy eventually, whether the A's had employed it or not.
not moneyball....john fisher
Sadly the wait it is now (to some degree but at large) $$$$$$$$$$$ wins baseball.
Edit:$$$$$$ and no cap ruins baseball as a competitive sport as far as WS go.
Edit2: the Astros were cheating in 2017.
1. Proof read before posting.
2. Yes the astros cheated. Get over it already ffs
He didn’t mention 2017
As a Yankees fan, I have watched them spend tons of money this millennium only to get bounced by "poorer" teams in the playoffs. They have two World Series from 2000 on, but the first one was really more the result of what they had built pre-mega-deal era (not that they were poor then), largely by the great Gene Michael.
The 2009 World Series relied on big contracts, but considering how many of the big contracts they gave out before and after were massive disappointments, it was a pathetic return on investment.
The Dodgers seem like they are now trying their best to outdo the Yankees in this regard. Each year a new superstar, and still only one 60-game-fan-less-pandemic-season World Series to show for it. Always being bounced by "lesser" teams.
The moral of the story? Money doesn't mean much if the organization doesn't know how to spend it wisely or properly utilize what they spent it on.
The Oakland fans don't hate the team, they hate the A's owner. Get your facts straight.
David Justice wasn’t a free agent signing.
Great video.
😂😂 both the marlins and Royals managed to make it work 😂😂
Just subbed
Appreciate it my man
How Strangelike!
need to spend money to win
Ruined baseball. Oakland was ruined well before “money ball” days.
This video is trash. I can name a dozen players right now that are exciting A's. They built it again, its not a surprise every team has a cycle of succuss every few years. Langeliers, Gelof, Rooker, Miller, Bleday, Butler, Ruiz, McCann, Soderstrom, Wilson, Estes. Hell even Abraham Toro is a very decent ball player. Love the As and thats not even my team.
Where's the success?
Or. Just like any other team they have good seasons, and they have bad seasons.
Theres reasons as to why each single season is good and bad
John Fisher is the person we hate! We love the A’s! At least get your main facts straight before you make a video like this. Clickbait inaccurate nothing burger.
#goballers
Were on the same side my guy