Rumor: Billy Beane to step down as A's GM in '09 to focus on Quakes?

The "Moneyball" approach is to identify undervalued players, which can mean to identify general areas where particular attributes are undervalued, and go from there. The trick in soccer, I'd guess, is in the act of identifying those areas ... getting baseball players with good OBP when no one else looking for that seems easier than figuring out the OBP equivalent in soccer.

Which doesn't mean it can't be done. Not sure what he's doing right now that would conflict with my wishes, but if I had my choice, I'd ask Beane to hire Voros McCracken pronto.

 

Wasn't there talk awhile back of some top secret statistical analysis system that Billy Beane and some other people were developing/using and helping out Tottenham with? Don't remember where the article was, but I believe I saw it on here.

It would be very interesting to see the backlash from A's fans if he did step down, and also how that would change the Earthquakes game, the game of soccer itself, or if any of the statistical analysis could apply to soccer. Sure would love to see it work for this team.

 

My big concern is turning the Quakes into MLS' version of Crewe. I don't want to be developing players to sell on the open market. Big turnover, little pressure to win.

I understand that Wolff and company want to make a profit and might see that as one way to go, but it's not the path that fans like me are going to enjoy.

Take a look at the most consistent teams in MLS, Houston and NE. Sure, they develop talent and some of it leaves, but they also have a system and core team members that stay and play together for years.

I don't ever want to feel that championships are being sacrificed for "player development".

 

Lets face it we are not going to have any championsips for a few years, but i agree with everything you say

 

Is this a reference to Billy Beane? Because he has been a very successful GM for the A's. Whether that would translate to the soccer world remains to be seen, but I'm more than willing to find out with the Quakes. Last season was the A's first losing season since 1998, and they are contending yet again in 2008. That's hardly "sacrificing."

 

One thing that baseball has and MLS does not have is an extensive developmental system. We tend to focus on Major League Baseball when there is talk about the sport, but the real work happens in the minor league farm system. When a player is found, he does not usually step directly into the majors, but rather is trained in the farm system of the team that signed him. I would sure like to see MLS move in that direction, with teams constantly developing new players within a total organizational approach.

 

You're forgetting that his whole philosophy of scraping by is due mostly to a lack of salary cap in baseball. We don't have to worry about that. He can apply his wisdom while spending to the modest limit which MLS allows.

 

Would that be a big paycut to go from being GM of the A's to GM of the Quakes? It seems to me like it would be with the revenues a MLB team brings in compared to the revenues a MLS team brings in. What's the A's payroll? 40-50 million. that's a lot more than the 2 million or so the Quakes pay out?

 

I think you make a good point. With MLS, all teams must stay within a preset limit on salaries (at least that is what they say....it's legitimately arguable that some teams work a little differently). If everyone is working on a budget, it is imperative that teams identify previously undiscovered talent. I am not saying that money ball will pan out in MLS, but it sure seems like a concept that might gain some traction.

 

Honestly though does anyone think Beane is actually going to leave the A's? I mean I can see him platooning between them, but I honestly don't think he's going to leave the baseball team he partially owns as years of work may finally come to fruition in 2011 or so just to work with the Quakes. At best I think we'll get him on double duty.

 

He's not going to leave the A's, but if he started spending a substantial amount of effort on the Quakes, he would need to leave the GM job.

 

I honestly don't think he'll even do that. Not til Moneyball gets to be applied in Fremont. We may get some Beane treatment, but I just don't see him leaving the A's. Not after all he's been offered and still stayed with them (ie: the Red Sox job).

 

The problem that I have with the A's is the definition of success. If you define success to be a team that is in contention every year with a lower payroll than the majority of the teams, then Beane and the A's are very successful. If you define success as winning championships, the A's have not been successful.

In the end, I think that Billy can only help the Quakes with new ideas and for bringing a model which appears to be a good fit for the MLS. As someone else already pointed out, the salary cap is a huge benefit to Billy's operational model. By just being in contention every year, the odds are that you will achive success one of the years (of course, tell that to NE).

 

Well, as a fan of the Giants and the Earthquakes, I love this idea. ;-)
It would be interesting, however to see how far the the concepts in Moneyball could be applied to soccer. One thing that baseball has over soccer in this regard is the mountains of statistics stretching back over 100 years. The box score on a typical soccer game is relatively sparse. So even if you identify the equivalent of "OBP" for soccer, you would still need to analyze all the games in which your potential pool of players participate in order to collect these stats, because I don't think they're already being collected. In baseball, that collection of data is nearly free, and you just have to spend time crunching the numbers.

 

As an A's fan I'd be pretty sad if Beane were to step down so soon without reaping the benefits of having the new ballpark.

But if he were to go to the Quakes it'd be a lot easier to take. The thought of Beane operating in MLS is mouthwatering. He's done a great job with the A's in an uneven playing field - imagine what he could do in a league that has a hard cap of 2.3 mil and an level playing field (insert MLS Galaxy joke).

Beane isn't a cost cutter as some might think after hearing the idea of Moneyball - he just does a brilliant job of maximizing output with a given resource.

 

I get frustrated with that misconception. People think "Moneyball" is a euphemism or something, as if there's no thought put into the process.

 

Since the team has limited funds to invest in players, Billy Beane is exactly what the Quakes need: getting the biggest bang for your buck. I think this is Bean's approach. I may be wrong about MoneyBall. Go quakes!!!!

 

Good idea, but most countries that play baseball don't play soccer and the other way around also. So for baseball you'd scout the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua and Venezuela, but not El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and so on. So we would need many new scouts in new countries. (Ah wait! Mexico plays both baseball and soccer! Japan too, but not many others.) Still, it might not be so expensive. It's just going to depend on the logistics and how excited people are about doing the scouting. Heck, I'd go to Costa Rica and watch lots of Fútbol.

goooooo quaaaaaakes!!!!!

 

No please. What has this guy ever won with this moneyball approach? How many world series was he at? How many did he win? This "moneyball" approach will turn us into a small club that just develops talent for the big ones. A's fans will be relieved when he leaves. It's not like he would turn us into Arsenal who bought young guys to finish 3rd or 4th every year. It does not work. When has a team ever won something while being cheap. Yankees: no. Red Sox: no. Man Utd: no. Chelsea: no. Barca: no. Real Madrid: no. The only thing that might help us that there is a salary cap. So maybe he could do something. But I don't want to be a fan of a club that has it's own stadium but still does not want to use their DP slot. I want them to be an Elite club in the Region that not only competes in MLS Cup but can also win the SuperLiga, The Champions League, and a club that is good enough to warrant an invite into the Copa Libertadores. I don't want to be the Oakland A's of MLS. A team that cannot sellout a game at the Coliseum because unless they play the Giants. I want the best product in MLS.

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Answer my questions then. Tell me what Beane has won.

 

Okay.

But I'm not going to go into the straw man argument of what has he won. That kind of logic leads to conclusions that Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino because he won more titles.

Beane took over the A's in 1997 after finishing near the bottom of the AL West. Since his time the A's have finished in 4th only once (the year after he took over) and have won the division 4 times and come in second another 4, all the while having a vastly smaller payroll to work with.

I will debunk the myth that the "moneyball" approach has yet to win anything (besides all those division titles with less money). Since Beane's success with the A's several other teams have adopted the approach of the A's. Most notably is the Boston Red Sox who have won 2 out of the last 4 World Series since switching to this approach.

Equally baffling is your idea that you have to spend the most money to win anything. You cite the Yankees who haven't won a title since 2000 while the Florida Marlins and their league-cellar payroll have managed to nab one.

These are just examples in a cap free environment though (such as international soccer). The more apt comparisons would be the NBA where hard caps are in place similar to MLS. But bringing that up just takes a major crap on the idea of money=rings. The Knicks have been the biggest spenders for the past 8 or so years and have a handful of lottery picks to show for it. The Mavs spend a ton as well yet they can't win a title either. The most successful franchise - the San Antonio Spurs - are right near the league average in spending. The same can be said for every other title team in the past decade for the NBA. The NHL and NFL have harder caps and a diverse list of recent winners - no advantage there in spending more money.

You also say that "This "moneyball" approach will turn us into a small club that just develops talent for the big ones." but that really has no standing as well. The A's have traded away talent for prospects but they are hardly a farm system. It is merely Beane selling high on every player and getting more than a fair share return for them. Every player traded from the A's during Beane's tenure (save for Hudson) has taken a drastic dive in performance. Meanwhile the A's are able to compete while still operating with a pencil thin payroll due to ripping off other teams for their youth.

I like the cheap shot of the A's not filling up their stadium, as if Beane himself is in charge of marketing and chose to move the franchise to the area back in 1967.

Moneyball isn't about spending less, it's about spending smarter. It isn't about cutting costs, it's about maximizing returns. You're a Man U fan so it seems easy to throw more money at a problem and anyone who doesn't do that is cheap. Well, that's not how MLS is going to work anytime soon so if you want a winning team you need to have a sharp head running the show, and Beane would be just that.

 

I'd rather have Doyle as bad as that is.