Billy Beane interview, first of two
DMZ · May 27, 2008 at 12:23 am · Filed Under Mariners
Athletics Nation has a long two-part interview with Billy Beane. The first part is up.
I’m not going to quote great bits and point out the contrast between him and our front office, or anything like that. If you’ve been around, you know where we stand on the relative merits of the two management teams, and I don’t think it’d be productive.
It’s good reading, though, and worth checking out.
Comments
41 Responses to “Billy Beane interview, first of two”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
My favorite quote:
Truer words have never been spoken. Oh, how I wish one day the M’s will share the same philosophy.
Here’s my favorite:
I mean, he didn’t reference the M’s FO by name, but wow, could he at least be a bit more subtle when insulting the M’s.
Another shot at the M’s front office.
So why exactly is Billy Beane such a controversial figure? If you could sum up his philosophy in a word that word would be “pragmatism.” Given facts about his team and market conditions he proceeds in a rational and profit-maximizing fashion. Veteran pitchers are overvalued, so he acquires minor leaguers capable of similar production. Where can you possibly find fault with this approach?
Instead of dealing with the merits of his philosophy, the old baseball guard chooses to reject it violently and cursorily. Why? Because they think he wrote Moneyball. Because they think that book’s thesis was that every baseball player should be fat or a computer and that games should be decided by comparing OBPs after 9 innings.
I think you guys are projecting a bit. The M’s f.o. sucks, so anything Bill Beane says will sound like an indictment of the M’s front office.
Yeah. The M’s are close to a “worst practices” company, so pretty frequently if someone says what a baseball organization shouldn’t do, this will hit the M’s.
And without reading Beane’s mind I’d assume that if the Thomas comments is aimed at anyone, it’s the Blue Jays.
I think the real problem is that the Mariners FO usually do think they are building something special or that they have something special.
What’s interesting to me is that, at least philosophically, everything that Beane says is obvious. Anyone with an MBA, and most people without one, would understand that there is absolutely nothing controversial about his approach. It is clearly the most logical way to do things. From a macro-perspective, I just don’t see how you could disagree with him. Obviously, different circumstances would dictate different actions (e.g. if he had the kind of money that the Yankees or M’s have), but still, the general philosophy would apply. If he had more money to work with, Beane would just “have something special” more often than he does now.
It is at the specific decision making level that one might disagree with Beane. For example, you could argue that he could have gotten more for Swisher. However, it is those types of decisions that are also the most difficult to argue with, because in most cases Beane and his team *do* have far more information than us.
As long as money and wining are the two key variables for a baseball team, I think it is inevitable that Beane’s general approach will be adopted by all teams eventually. As M’s fans, we unfortunately have to see a team where winning is less important, in part because the team tends to make money hand over fist even even while losing. For that reason, and also because ownership is so old-school, we’ll see one of the latest adoptions of the Beane approach. But it will happen.
1. ‘Special’ is an abstract concept. UI’m sure the M’s want ‘something special’ just like any other team. Doing the work to get it is a separate issue.
3. The M’s were reportedly interested in Thomas. It was actually Thomas, in fact, who nixed the deal because he didn’t want to bump Vidro from his DH spot.
the interesting thing to me in the Beane article is that he seems completely prepared. Even to the point that he reads their website. “I think I saw someone on your site say, ‘Why did you sign Emil Brown?'” He just seems really, really in touch with everything – players, stats, other managers, fans.
The other stuff, it’s great reading how he thinks, and yes, it makes me jealous of the A’s.
Derek…you’re twisted and sick! Thank you for torturing me even further! Not only do I have to sit through this nauseous season, now you offer reading that adds to my torment. It’s like offering someone that is in the throws of severe food poisoning a gourmet feast. It just turns my stomach further about my current situation!
Thanks for the great read.
Part II is up, and Part III is supposed to be up tomorrow.
And now I’ve got a case of “GM envy.”
To continue the quote from #2 –
Not once did he say “character” or “grit” or even “veteran”, let alone “veteran leadership”.
He did say
— Another cheap shot at the Mariners, I guess.
Oh, Jesus. The thing is like a point-by-point rebuttal of Bavasi’s entire modus. Every damn sentence.
But Bavasi says he’s doing exactly that.
We can’t have Beane, of course, but Beane disciple Paul DePodesta is just waiting to be hired to hired to GM a team. And, why lookie here, we may just have a GM opening presently.
Having been down here in Los Angeles during DePodesta’s short 2-year tenure with the Dodgers, it was invigorating to get a first-hand view of a big market ball team being run smartly and efficiently. Unfortunately for DePodesta, he wasn’t overly solicitous of media (not that he was rude or truculent toward them… he just didn’t perceive media management to be his number one priority), so the media turned on him viciously at the first sign of trouble (especially columnist Bill Plaschke, who made it his personal mission to see DePodesta removed, and who has cooed printed praise about DePo’s successor on account of the guy’s crucial habit of promptly returning Bill’s phone calls) (I wish I was joking about that last part, but I’m not). Also, unfortunately for DePodesta, he imagined he’d get longer than 2 years to manage the franchise so he didn’t pull desperate must-win-now deals like throwing around crazy amounts of free agent cash to cut long-term deals with former All Stars on downhill slides (“Hey, Jason Schmidt and Juan Pierre and Nomar Garciaparra and Andrew Jones used to be good once!”), nor did he trade away the Dodgers’ future prospects in order to slap a band-aid on the team’s mediocre second season under DePo’s guidance. Also, unfortunately for DePodesta, he let go of the town favorite and team “heart and soul,” Paul LoDuca, risking the team’s all-important “chemistry,” getting in return that lame, weak, several-time-All-Star: Brad Penny.
So you can see why the guy had to be fired.
Sigh.
The Dodgers have not been at all fun for me to follow since DePo left, primarily because watching poorly-run franchises is not fun for me (the same reason the Mariners are similarly not fun for me to follow). Now it’s too late for the Dodgers, they’re gonna have to sleep in the bed they made. But wouldn’t Seattle be a perfect place for a smart general manager who’s not into self-promotion and glad-handing, and who excels at finding talents to match the advantages of the ballpark in which his team plays?
Every morning I wake up and pray to baseball Jesus that the Mariners will hire Paul DePodesta to run the franchise (and give him more than 2 years to do so).
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Can you imagine having that guy for your GM? Some days, I actually wish I was born in Oakland.
Most days, recently, to be honest.
Speaking of good GM’s, what is everyone’s take on young John Daniels (TEX) so far? He made some questionable moves early in his tenure but his track record since 2006 is impressive and the Rangers appear to be on the right track for continued improvement.
crap. the coding worked before.
Felix gets a nod from Beane in Part 2:
This is awesome stuff. I’m actually a little surprised by how candid and ultimately fallible Beane seems in the interview. His moves and brief comments always seem so precise and confident that I guess I’ve built up an unrealistic image of him as some sort of robotically rational super-GM. I like this version better. He’s smart, he’s sure, but he’s also personable, honest and human.
I guess this isn’t the first time Athletics Nation has done these interviews. I’ll have to go back and read some of their older ones too.
Thanks for posting this. My favorite part is how he compliments Frank Thomas for his influence on other players. There was a hatchet job done on Thomas by one of the Toronto writers after his release from the Blue Jays. Let’s see…who should I believe? A smart GM or a mainstream media sportswriter. Tough call.
Another concept that Bavasi might not fully grasp:
Well, except for that Vidro kid the M’s just brought up.
@Steve T
If every GM is like Billy Beane, how do any trades get done if no one will take the initiative? Billy Beane waits for Josh Byrnes to contact him while Josh Byrnes is waiting for Billy Beane to call.
The goal isn’t to get trades done; it’s to make your team better. If you’re reducing the value of your players, you’re going to fail at that task more often. Let the other guy commit. The other GMs are not all Billy Beanes, and never will be.
I wonder what Beane would be able to do with a modest payroll, let alone something like the $100+ million the M’s have to deal with. Would he be able to put together a team that would win 100 games a year? I’d have to think that with more resources the guy would be nearly unbeatable.
Why is Beane controversial? Because he takes every long-standing baseball reference point and essentially tells them all to take a hike. Baseball writers hate him because they make them look ridiculous, and their long-held beliefs (batting average and wins are great ways to judge players!) are proven to be false.
Beane talking about wanting to keep young players up in the majors once he’s brought them up even if they’re struggling of course reminds us of the Mariners’ unwillingness to show the same kind of sensible patience.
But it occurred to me that the way the Mariners behave isn’t even consistent with their own organizational philosophy. We know the Mariners like to push prospects aggressively through the minor league system, that they have to “learn how to fail before they learn hot to succeed.” But they don’t, so far as I know, kick them back down a notch if they don’t succeed right away at the new level. That’s part of the whole process. Then they bring them to the majors, and if the prospect doesn’t succeed right away, they lose their playing time and then get sent down.
It’s as though once the prospects hit the majors, the organization has a failure of nerve about their own philosophy.
The other thing that I seem to see is that the M’s organization is
a) driven by consensus
b) not very flexible
c) not very nimble
They make a decisions and they want to stick with it, come hell or high water. They are slow to adapt to changing environments. And they have the mindset of a corporate manager, and not one like an entrepreneur…
IMFletcher I mean, he didn’t reference the M’s FO by name, but wow, could he at least be a bit more subtle when insulting the M’s.
IMF: FWIW, I’m guessing Billy was taking a swipe at our posh local retirement community across the Bay. The Giaunts have a large and loyal fan base, despite their best field and FO efforts to not deserve it.
It really doesn’t read to me like he’s taking shots at anyone specific. The things he said are general enough to apply to several organizations.
does that come from the nature of the CEO, specifically, or from the awkwardness of a 15-person ownership and a 7-person board?
Like dogfather above, when I read it, I was thinking it might be possible shot at the cross-bay rival Giants. I think any derived insults are up to the individual mind reading the article and what they want to percieve. At no time did I think any of the comments were a shot that the Mariners or their FO.
Good question. Probably more the former than the latter, because I can think of partnerships in business that are larger, but are considerably quicker to react because the organizing partner has a dominant personality and has the trust of the rest.
It strikes me that much of the ownership are dilletantes in sports that like to mess around with the team, and only one or two are really sharp fans that would take to sabremetrics.
If you look at the comments on the AN site, regarding the interview, it is clear that A’s fans hold Billy Beane in high regard.
It is easy to follow the A’s and wish them well because they have a front office that is constantly trying to make their team better.
Would the M’s trade their bloated $117 million dollar roster straight across for the A’s $48 million dollar roster?
What impresses me even more is not that everything Beane turns yarn to gold, but when he does flub up he doesn’t leave an aging veteran on the roster to take up space. He works harder at correcting his mistakes. Only 8 of the original 25 opening day roster from 2007 are on today’s roster.
The M’s are toast….go A’s!
The fact that this interview is taking place on a blog and not in the major media says a lot about Beane’s knowledge of his team’s fans, not to mention his respect for them.
Bavasi’s comments, on the other hand, come off in comparison as petulant and contemptuous. The latter because it was the dedicated and knowledgable fans who told him he was putting out a crappy team.
Beane doesn’t sound like a man to gild the turd. And that’s probably why he never has to.
Not so fast. The amazing thing about the A’s is that they’re so competitive on such a tiny payroll. I think Beane would agree that as more money is available, the amount of GM skill needed to field a good team actually decreases. Also, “great” teams usually have their share of stars; the market for top-notch talent is *generally* valued fairly, and so can’t easily be exploited.
As an earlier poster mentioned, doubling the payroll would most likely allow the rebuilding period to be shorter, but even with access to a lot more money I doubt Beane would be able to consistently field a 110-win team.
Since Beane’s team first made the post season in 1999, they’ve averaged 92.5 wins per year. Given that the original premise is a 100 win average, I’m looking at the marginal cost of 7.5 wins and thinking it’s pretty do-able with a decent payroll.
To paraphrase that filthy hippie J. Lennon, Imagine!
Imagine if Mr. Beane had been GM during Bavasi’s laughable tenure. 4 years with $100+ million dollar payrolls.
To be fair, I don’t think the GM really makes the signifigant roster decisions in this organization, nor do I believe those decisions are necessarily made with World Series titles in mind.
But hey, we’ve had the best commercials in baseball for over decade and Safeco is great place for soccer moms to take their kids for the ‘ballpark experience’! Remember when they tried to ban ‘Yankees Suck’ shirts? Yeah.
Actually, from a profit maximization standpoint, building a 110 win team doesn’t make sense. There was a great article at the Hardball Times recently about how teams make money. Wins are a huge contributor, however, once a team has clinched a playoff birth, the marginal value of additional wins sharply decreases. Having as many great players as would generate a 110 win season would be a lot less valuable than, for example, using one of those players to stock your farm system for organizational depth and future wins.
why do people seem to feel that the Ms are the only team in baseball that cares about promotions and ballpark atmosphere? (heck, even the A’s started their own tv commercial run based obviously on the M’s success ….) If they really only cared about getting ‘soccer moms’ to the ballpark, they wouldn’t have spent like drunken sailors on FAs the last few years.
#39:
Exactly. I am dubious that any baseball GMs are at that level of understanding at this stage though (including Beane). It’s only recently that we have seen MBA types enter baseball GM roles. We will see a lag before we get GMs with that level of quantitative savvy. (e.g. Economists).