Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
This team is, in essence, a refutation of Moneyball’s central thesis
Removed from a narrative that suggests that the obscure and unloved likes of Chad Bradford—and by proxy, Beane’s shrewd evaluations—were responsible for the old A’s success, it amounts to this: You should value things that are worth more than they cost. As morals go, this is one of Lewis’ better ones.
This team is, in essence, a refutation of Moneyball’s central thesis: the idea that the world makes sense and that someone who’s smart or at least attentive can figure it out
this should buy Beane at least another half-decade of no accountability when things inevitably go south.
a faceless group, full of random white guys
And did he really link approvingly to Paul Lebowitz to make that argument?
So now that the A's are down 0-2 in the playoffs the Beane-bashers are back. Go figure.
When the A's win, Beane is a genius. When they lose, baseball is an unpredictable game and they were unlucky in playing and unfair game.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.3582 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed