118 replies to this topic

[Rough Carrigan]

How the Boston Red Sox Got Smart, Won a World Series, and Created a New Blueprint for Winning

This book is finally out. I got mine today and just finished it. It was written by various folks at Baseball Prospectus and the credits thank Theo Epstein and Nelson De La Rosa among others. I recommend it very highly to the folks who are serious enough fans to be frequenting this site.

It reviews in two week or so, sometimes a month at a time, chunks of the 2004 season with explanations of how the Red Sox sabremetric approach to the game was being manifested on the field and why it was smart.

Will you agree with everything in it? Not likely. But it'll certainly make you think even if it's just to form a more solid reason for disagreeing with what it says. I'll post some short excerpts later.

If Moneyball was sabremetrics 101 or perhaps just a seminar, this book is sabremetrics 201

There's a very interesting chapter that begins on page 125 that talks about why teams tend to play over or under their pythagorean expected records. And a really cool list of all brawls from the 20's on that they could find info about. (One chapter was about the 7/24/04 brawl not being really the point at which the Sox caught fire)

Oh, and SoSH is in the book! Okay, it's only a Bill James quote and you'd only know that it was from SoSH if you check footnote 13 of chapter 15. But SoSH is in the book!!! What a glorious (or is it pathetic) feeling of importance!

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 05 October 2005 - 11:31 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Can't wait to get it, my copy's on the way from Amazon.

[Who The Hell is Stan Papi]

can we get Tito to read it by 7pm?

I am looking forward to it and can already guess at the feedback/criticisms. I hope it helps further shed light on the sport.

[BoSoxLady]

Ours was delivered today.

[The Gray Eagle]

For info and ordering:

http://www.amazon.co...=books&n=507846

I just ordered mine.

[Fratboy]

2/3 of the way through it, and met Steve Goldman on Tuesday as the B&N in Burlington. Love, love, love this book, but sadly, most of the stuff in there I already know/knew. Nonetheless, good to know I'm wicked smahhhht.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Anything in there about Edgar Renteria and Matt Clement?

I think it's a tad premature to say that this management group created a "new blueprint for winning" but I'll surely check it out.

[Fratboy]

Anything in there about Edgar Renteria and Matt Clement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shhhhhhh.

This book is about the brilliance of the 2004 team. If there's anything about 2005, it's probably near the end.

[Rough Carrigan]

I agree with Fratboy. (Yes, I, too, like to nourish a conceit that I'm wicked smaaaahhhhht) There were a lot of explanations of things that were more intended for a general audience that's willing to listen to sabremetric ideas but isn't familiar with many of them.

edit: Yeah, the title's a bit over the top, but, the book didn't come off as stridently as some BP writing does.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 06 October 2005 - 09:04 AM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

How is the quality of writing in the book? Does it flow well? Is it conversational tone?

One of the things I always enjoyed about Bill James was that he could tell stories in his pieces. It made for enjoyable reading.

[August West]

Picked up a copy last friday at the Borders in Concord, NH. They had two copies on the shelf. Read about half of it last weekend and found it to be very interesting and a fast read. Like some others have already said, if you already know what VORP, WRAP and other BP metrics are you are not going to learn much that you don't already know. Still I highly recommend it. And yes, it will leave you feeling like a wicked smart fan.

The Sabermetrics 101, 102 analogy is right on.

[August West]

How is the quality of writing in the book? Does it flow well? Is it conversational tone?

One of the things I always enjoyed about Bill James was that he could tell stories in his pieces. It made for enjoyable reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since each chapter is written by a different writer, each chapter has its own tone. Some of the chapters reminded me of Bill James' writing style. In my opinion, it flows well.

[Rough Carrigan]

How is the quality of writing in the book? Does it flow well? Is it conversational tone?

One of the things I always enjoyed about Bill James was that he could tell stories in his pieces. It made for enjoyable reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMO, it's not as well written as the Historical Abstract, but that's a matter of taste. While it's a bit smarmy at points, it's not as bombastic as the transaction analysis pieces and some of the other things at BP tend to seem.

[Fratboy]

SJH, it's broken up very nicely, and my first thought was that it's the ideal bathroom book. It also works well on the nightstand, as I can polish off a chapter or two before going to sleep.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Thanks for the reports, guys. I cannot wait to get this thing. Should be in any day now.

[Maalox]

Item one: I've heard or read Theo Epstein say that he's "not really that much of a stats guy" about five or six times now.

Item two: Billy Beane, aka Boy Genius I, has yet to win a playoff series. Theo Epstein, aka Boy Genius II, has won one World Series.

In obedience to the stathead credo, I'm not gonna buy the whole "blueprint for winning" stuff until it's backed up by a "larger sample size" of WS wins.

Or until the guys from BP get laid, whichever comes first.

[BigMike]

Shhhhhhh.

This book is about the brilliance of the 2004 team. If there's anything about 2005, it's probably near the end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Inherit Pedro, Derek Lowe, and Manny Ramirez.

I am sure the first chapter is about the importance of picking the right organization so you can inherit a great core of talent and well over 200 million in annual revenues

[jp]

You are just a glutton for punishment, BigMike!

[Rough Carrigan]

Inherit Pedro, Derek Lowe, and Manny Ramirez. 

I am sure the first chapter is about the importance of picking the right organization so you can inherit a great core of talent and well over 200 million in annual revenues 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, they quite freely acknowledge that Dan Duquette left a great core of talent for HWL.

[Fratboy]

Actually, they quite freely acknowledge that Dan Duquette left a great core of talent for HWL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll second that, and also note that they accurately account for his inability to surround the core with low cost, high value talent. Sang Hoon Lee, Dante Bichette, and Mike Lansing, anybody?

That's the main difference between the Duke Era and the Theo era with respect to player acquisition. (Jury's on on the Theo farm system, but things are starting to look good.)

[David Laurila]

I'll be posting a series of interviews with authors of the book in the coming week. I'll post links in this thread when they go up.

[Fratboy]

I'll be posting a series of interviews with authors of the book in the coming week.  I'll post links in this thread when they go up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, David. Really looking forward to those.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Just got it today, really enjoying it so far.

Man, Mike Lansing was even more crap-tastic than I ever thought possible. Amazing.

[502 to Right]

I think of 2001 and shudder:

Jose Offerman
Mike Lansing
Chris Stynes
Dante Bichette
Darren Lewis
Troy O'Leary
Craig Grebeck
Morgan Burkhart

Brian Daubach looked like a Hall of Famer in comparison.

I'm very appreciative of the offensive juggernaut Theo has put togther for 2003, 2004, and 2005.

[Rough Carrigan]

Quibbles:

P.13--"The reliably self-defeating manager Jimy Williams started Pete Schourek instead of Pedro Martinez in the elimination game of the 1998 American League Division series."

If Steven Goldman, the author of that sentence, thinks that the Sox lost in 5 games to Cleveland in the 1998 ALDS, he's mistaken. The Sox were beaten in 4 games. If he's saying Pedro should have started game 4, I think he's mistaken but somewhat more subjectively. Pedro had not been great in ALDS game 1, though he'd won. The Sox had to win both games anyway, so why not give Pedro full rest and start him in game 5? If Jimy Williams was reliably self-defeating in this instance, what was Dick Williams in the last two games of the 1967 season? Dick Williams made the exact same choice. He said that they had to win both and saved Lonborg for his usual rest and the last game. Dick Williams, despite making the exact same choice, escapes the author's censure.

**********
P.20--(said of Dan Duquette) ". . but he was more closely identified with recent disappointments--the failure to re-sign Mo Vaughn, the ill-considered decision to sign Jose Offerman and bill him as the centerpiece of the offense, and the team's lousy starting pitching . . "

If only Michael Lewis were there for Duquette! Billy Beane loses Jason Giambi and Lewis is there to get across Beane's intended replacement strategy of getting back some of Giambi's value, OBP, with one guy, Scott Hatteberg, and some with another, etc. Duquette didn't say that Offerman would be the centerpiece of the offense. He said the same thing that Beane said only without Lewis to put it across for him. He said that Offerman was there to replace Vaughn's on base percentage. Duquette had his faults, which Chris Kahrl and Jonah Keri catalog quite well. They didn't need to invent delusions from which he didn't suffer.

**********
P.257--(said of Big Papi in 2004 ALCS game 5) "As if following a script in which he was the inevitable hero of the picture, Ortiz blasted a 1-0 pitch into the right field bleachers to cut the lead in half."

Actually that homer was to left and went into the Monster seats. I know, big deal.

***********
P.294--In a listing of baseball brawls that purports to be the "Complete" list of baseball brawls, there's no listing of the famous 1967 Sox versus MFY's Joe Foy, Thad Tillotson brawl. And there's no listing of the brawl in 1985 between the Sox and Blue Jays in which George Bell and Kison tangled.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 06 October 2005 - 10:47 PM.

[Comfortably Lomb]

P.13--"The reliably self-defeating manager Jimy Williams started Pete Schourek instead of Pedro Martinez in the elimination game of the 1998 American League Division series."

If Steven Goldman, the author of that sentence, thinks that the Sox lost in 5 games to Cleveland in the 1998 ALDS, he's mistaken. The Sox were beaten in 4 games. If he's saying Pedro should have started game 4, I think he's mistaken but somewhat more subjectively. Pedro had not been great in ALDS game 1, though he'd won. The Sox had to win both games anyway, so why not give Pedro full rest and start him in game 5? If Jimy Williams was reliably self-defeating in this instance, what was Dick Williams in the last two games of the 1967 season? Dick Williams made the exact same choice. He said that they had to win both and saved Lonborg for his usual rest and the last game. Dick Williams, despite making the exact same choice, escapes the author's censure.

I was there... so don't forget that Schourek put together a very solid start that night. 5.2 innings of shutout baseball followed by another inning+ of scoreless relief from one Derek Lowe. The goat of that game was Gordon blowing his first save in quite a long time (it was a two inning deal though).

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Sure there's nits to pick. The first picture of Tom Yawkey and his wife (said to be from 1938) is ID'd as Tom and Jean Yawkey. In fact, that's a picture of Yawkey and his first wife. Tom married Jean Hollander in 1944.

Overall, though, it's been an enjoyable read so far.

[David Laurila]

...started Pete Schourek instead of Pedro Martinez in the elimination game of the 1998 American League Division series."

If Steven Goldman, the author of that sentence, thinks that the Sox lost in 5 games to Cleveland in the 1998 ALDS, he's mistaken.  The Sox were beaten in 4 games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure why you think he didn't know that. He said it was an elimination game. As we were eliminated, I think he had the terminology down pat.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Not sure why you think he didn't know that.  He said it was an elimination game.  As we were eliminated, I think he had the terminology down pat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the larger point is that Schourek pitched extremely well and gave up 0 runs. Gordon was the one who gave up the deciding runs and cost us the game.

These are just nitpicks, though. The book is very very good, and it's a fun read so far.

[URI]

You know, they've been working on this book pretty much for a year, and overall I find it enjoyible so far, but...

This is Baseball Prospectus. They are one of the most famous baseball anaylsis site out there. Because of that, the little things do kinda matter.

Things like saying that Timlin was signed from the Cardinals (he was signed from the Phillies) don't mean a whole lot, but it's annoying to read something that takes itself so seriously as the so-called gold standard of number crunching miss a 2' putt.

I mean, it's not even like you had to really look it up...Timlin was in the Rolen trade.

Little things are kind of annoying.

Edited by URISoxFan, 07 October 2005 - 07:36 AM.

[LynnRoyalRooter]

I think the larger point is that Schourek pitched extremely well and gave up 0 runs. Gordon was the one who gave up the deciding runs and cost us the game.

These are just nitpicks, though. The book is very very good, and it's a fun read so far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's funny - we just hit on this in the White Sox thread...

The best precedent I know of is the 75 WS where game 6 was postponed three times because of rain.  It did have a big effect on the pitching and the series.  Tiant was able to come back and start his third game of the series.  Bill Lee has argued, however, that starting Tiant there was actually a mistake.  (Lee started game 7.)  Lee argues that he should have started game 6 (on his usual day) and kept Tiant for game 7.  He makes the point that you have to win both so why not do it in the way that uses your pitchers most effectively.

The arguement Lee made was actually put into practice in the 1998 DS when Pedro was not started in Game 4 (Schoureck (sp!?)) made the start and pitched well. The thinking there (which I agreed with at the time) was that you needed to win 2 so maximize your chances in both games with your pen basically all available for both games should the need arise.

GODDAMMIT BRAGG SWING THE BAT! 

sorry

[Rudy Pemberton]

If Steven Goldman, the author of that sentence, thinks that the Sox lost in 5 games to Cleveland in the 1998 ALDS, he's mistaken.

Doesn't look like he thinks that.

He said the same thing that Beane said only without Lewis to put it across for him. He said that Offerman was there to replace Vaughn's on base percentage.

Eh, sort of, but not really. Beane replaced the entire production of Giambi, though...not just one small aspect (OBP). That Offerman replaced Vaughn's OBP isn't all that relevant- because there was a little thing called SLG which wasn't replaced by Offerman.

It would be like saying that Matt Clement replaced Pedro's strikeouts.

[Rough Carrigan]

Doesn't look like he thinks that.
Eh, sort of, but not really. Beane replaced the entire production of Giambi, though...not just one small aspect (OBP). That Offerman replaced Vaughn's OBP isn't all that relevant- because there was a little thing called SLG which wasn't replaced by Offerman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at the rosters and stats of the 2001 A's, with Giambi and the 2002 A's, without Giambi, it's really hard to see how he was replaced by Beane. Who did Beane add who replaced Giambi's slugging?

[Rudy Pemberton]

If you look at the rosters and stats of the 2001 A's, with Giambi and the 2002 A's, without Giambi, it's really hard to see how he was replaced by Beane. Who did Beane add who replaced Giambi's slugging?

No one; but he improved the defense a great deal, IIRC, that helped the pitching and added a few parts (Justice),....and that's the point! The whole concept is improving the entire team, he knew he couldn't replace Giambi with one player...just like you couldn't replace Mo Vaughn's production with one player. Saying that Offerman would replace his OBP might be true, but it ignores the rather important aspect of SLG. I mean, Mo's greatest assest was his slugging and on base skills; not just his OBP.

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't understand how that's anything different than Rough was saying, though. The situations seem quite parallel, in fact.

[Rudy Pemberton]

My understanding was that Duquette simply said Offerman would replace Mo's OBP, and nothing more. On its own- that doesn't make sense to me, since the team would be worse if they don't find a way to replace the SLG (or to improve the pitching, defense, whatever).

Beane's point was completely different- he knew they couldn't replace what Giambi brought to the team with one player.

Beane's comment (as interpreted by Lewis) made much more sense than Duquette's, and I'm not sure how the two can be compared (again, not knowing everything Duquette said) as similar.

[Rough Carrigan]

I don't disagree with what you say, Rudy. I disagree with the book saying that Duquette was representing Offerman as the "centerpiece" of the offense. He didn't. Now, maybe Duquette intended to get other value to replace Vaughn (but came up with Bichettes and Lansings, unfortunately) and simply failed in the effort. He didn't make any kind of crazy representation such as the book imputes.

[URI]

Well Duquette did bring in Daubach, who replaced Mo's slugging.

Without delving too deep, and if I remember the equation correctly...

Beane:
Giambi + Damon + Saenz = Hatteberg + Giambi II + Justice

Duquette ended up being:
Vaughn + Benjamin = Offerman + Daubach

The actions of these sets of transactions mean more than the labling by Beane/Duquette. The both refered to replacing the sum of the contributions of the players mentioned with other, more complementary players.

Edited by URISoxFan, 07 October 2005 - 10:08 AM.

[PedroKsBambino]

I thought Duquette explained the move in a very similar manner to Beane, but one had to look beyond the one-liner the local papers latched onto to see it. I believe this was the point Rough made initially as well and thus, the basis for the comparison.

Didn't Duquette send a letter to season-ticket holders that went through the whole thing?

[Rudy Pemberton]

Fair enough, Rough. Sorry about that.

Duquette ended up being: Vaughn + Benjamin = Offerman + Daubach

Yep, and it's too bad that isn't the way it's represented- which I think we're all trying to say.

I thought Duquette explained the move in a very similar manner to Beane, but one had to look beyond the one-liner the local papers latched onto to see it.

True, and that seems to be the complaint here...laziness on behalf of the authors? Good points.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 07 October 2005 - 10:09 AM.

[Pumpsie]

Yeah, it annoys me too when Baseball Prospectus gets easy things wrong. I thought that Jimy Williams' decision to go with first Schourek and THEN Pedro was a very good one. And it turned out to be a good one when Schourek came through with a great game. Not his fault the game was lost. And I can't believe they screw up the Offerman signing....AGAIN!!!

[Carroll Hardy]

Well Duquette did bring in Daubach, who replaced Mo's slugging.

Without delving too deep, and if I remember the equation correctly...

Beane:
Giambi + Damon + Saenz = Hatteberg + Giambi II + Justice

Duquette ended up being:
Vaughn + Benjamin = Offerman + Daubach

The actions of these sets of transactions mean more than the labling by Beane/Duquette.  The both refered to replacing the sum of the contributions of the players mentioned with other, more complementary players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, Duke had obtained Mike Stanley before the end of 1998. Stanley rotated at 1B/DH with Daubach.

Stanley had a .393/466/859 to go along with Offerman's 391/435/826 (offensive numbers almost indistinguishable from Johnny Damon's 2003-2005 splits, BTW) and Daubach's amazing 360/562/922 from out of nowhere. Not to mention enormous contributions from O'Leary, Lowe, and Varitek.

Oh yeah, and Duke became the known as the guy shrewd enough to trade for Pedro Martinez - twice.

Duquette in 1999 was every bit the "genius" that Theo is today. We'll see where Theo stands in a few years. History takes time for the paint to dry.

My guess is, he won't even be the GM here next year. Especially if the FO is intent on getting rid of Manny. I give Theo enough sense not to be known as "the guy who traded Manny."

[LahoudOrBillyC]

The interesting thing is that Offerman was a better player than Vaughn in 1998 (the year before the changes), a better player in 1999 (the year after the changes), and had a better career after that. Plus he saved us a lot of money. If you judge GMs by how transactions work out (not a perfect method of evaluation, granted), Duquette wins here.

Edited by LahoudOrBillyC, 07 October 2005 - 10:55 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I don't think there's any doubt that letting Mo go was the right move; it's just that replacing him with Offerman wasn't very good either. He was vastly overpaid, considering he couldn't play 2b very well.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

I don't think there's any doubt that letting Mo go was the right move; it's just that replacing him with Offerman wasn't very good either. He was vastly overpaid, considering he couldn't play 2b very well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are the transactions ever talked about in the same paragraph? Its like saying we let Lowe go so we could sign Renteria. Teams don't let free agents go and find guys with the same skill set laying around on the grass. You lose a good-fielding shortstop, you sign a slugging catcher, you lose a speedy center fielder, you sign a high OBP-first baseman. The Red Sox lost a guy, and used some of his money to sign a player who made our team demonstrably better, a player without whom we would not have made the 1999 ALCS. Long term, neither player was a good investment.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Why are the transactions ever talked about in the same paragraph?  Its like saying we let Lowe go so we could sign Renteria.  Teams don't let free agents go and find guys with the same skill set laying around on the grass.  You lose a good-fielding shortstop, you sign a slugging catcher, you lose a speedy center fielder, you sign a high OBP-first baseman.  The Red Sox lost a guy, and used some of his money to sign a player who made our team demonstrably better, a player without whom we would not have made the 1999 ALCS.  Long term, neither player was a good investment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They're linked because Duquette specifically linked them in his announcement of the Offerman signing. The reasoning was that Offerman could replace Mo's OBP; they became linked in people's minds to to that.

Weird, though, is that Offerman's 1999 season only gets an OPS+ of 107, despite impressive numbers on their surface (294/391/435).

Edited by Smiling Joe Hesketh, 07 October 2005 - 11:06 AM.

[Pumpsie]

The thing is that Jose Offerman was as advertised until he re-injured his knees. Then, his best asset defensively and one of his best offensively were taken away. Pre-injury Offerman had shortstop range at second to go along with his shortstop arm which more than made up for his hard hands. People forget how far behind second base Offerman could go and still throw out his man. And they forget how amazing he was tracking pop ups over his head. Pre-injury Offerman had just about the best range of any second baseman of that time. And they forget that the MOST errors Offerman ever had in a season with the Sox was 14, or less than half of what Edgar Renteria pooched this season.

Similarly, his speed was one of his best assets offensively, both in legging out infield chops and in running the bases. When he lost his speed he lost a lot of his OBP, which was the main reason for his signing in the first place. Just unfortunate for all involved.

Edited by Pumpsie, 07 October 2005 - 11:22 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The Red Sox lost a guy, and used some of his money to sign a player who made our team demonstrably better, a player without whom we would not have made the 1999 ALCS. Long term, neither player was a good investment.

Well yeah, that's kinda what I said. That Offerman was a better deal than Vaughn doesn't mean he was a good signing. I'm not sure why you are questioning why they too are linked- you link them in what you wrote several times. They are linked for the same reasons Clement / Wells / Miller are compared to Pedro; the GM's just to make the comparison and will have to deal with what happens.