[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

Moneyball - the book- struck me as being more about having a team that was consistently competitive on a small budget than about winning. That also assumes that a team that always has some chance will be more profitable than one that's hopeless.


Some of the new stats do seem to matter, but there's a lot of things in the game that aren't easily measured. The last three years of his career Don Baylor went to the world series with three different teams. Boston was 5th the year before and after (Although he was with them most of 87.
Minnesota, was 6th the year before, and 2nd the year after (he only played 20 games for them, but they only won by 2 ) The As were a good team, being 3rd in 87, and first again in 89.

How much influence did he have on those teams down the stretch? That's hard to put numbers to, but I think it's likely he had some.

Also hard to put numbers to is the group of players who are really pretty good, come to Boston and just don't do well at all, but are fine after they leave. Management? difficult fans? A wall that makes righthanders especially change their swing? difficult press? I've seen all that blamed. But there isn't really a stat for it.

Baylor didn't do much of anything in those 20 games either. I think it's a huge stretch to think he had any real role in the Twins pennant drive. The year before with the Sox, totally different matter, he was a key player.