Billy Beane Interview
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Billy Beane Interview
| By calig on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 02:01 pm:|
with everyones favorite razor voice host
Beane's explanation of batting Melhuse for Dye makes some sense.
click on his name for part 1
click on "here" for part 2
| By calig on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 02:17 pm:|
This is also a Ken Macha interview further down on the page.
| By asch on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 02:37 pm:|
very interesting comments.
And, I do like the way that he sounds relaxed, which makes me not worry as much.
| By kevink on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 03:07 pm:|
Ya, makes a difference when you know that Dye was hitting under .200 vs. Lowe.
I don't think we would have won if Dye came up that inning.
| By diamond_lil on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 03:08 pm:|
How nice to see Billy Beane stick up for his manager huh? I just don't see how the stats of rookies with such a small match-up sample could be used in a deciding game like that. In my opinion Macha managed the inning as if it was June and, not October.
Yeah, they really are relaxed about everything aren't they? This is perhaps why the entire team with only a couple of exceptions are really relaxed too...
Monte Poole said it best...the lack of fire and desire to win comes from the leadership. There you have it.
| By kevink on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 03:10 pm:|
When you know a guy is hitting .190 vs. a certain pitcher, why would you NOT pinch hit?
| By diamond_lil on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 03:19 pm:|
Dye's stats this year should not be a factor, considering that he has been coming back from an injury. My point is that he is a seasoned veteran and his experience counts more in a situation like that than his BA compared to such a small sample BA of a rookie.
I don't know if the A's would have won if Dye came up to bat...and because he didn't, nobody can say it was a mistake. Billy Beane certainly doesn't say he thinks it was a mistake
I think the game was lost when Macha didn't take Zito out of the game. I know that the excuse was that Foulke wasn't available, but again, this is a do or die game...you use any pitcher and he did use Lilly, so he still waited until it was too late to take Zito out.
| By kevink on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 03:49 pm:|
I believe it was Dye's career stats vs. Lowe that we're talking about. You have a legitimate gripe about leaving Dye in to bat in that situation. However, this one isn't as clear cut as say, pinch running for Jeremy G in 2001.
I agree about Zito being in too long.
But the SERIES was lost on Saturday when baserunning blunders and ridiculous umpire calls did us in.
| By diamond_lil on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 04:28 pm:|
Kevin, I don't know what his career numbers are against Lowe, but the BA for this year was based on 18 at bats with 3 hits, one HR, 2 RBi and 4 SO.
The fact is that Dye was showing signs of getting his timing back and regardless of his BA, he had more of a chance in my view than the rookie. AND
the records show Dye hits right handed pitching just as well or better than lefties. In fact last year, he hit most of his HR against RH pitchers.
I guess one can point to many factors for the losses of the series, but I think the manager lost game 5.
| By ronc on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 07:30 pm:|
Melhuse had never faced Lowe before. It was a bad bad move. Lowe said that Melhuse and Long made it obvious they were looking for something outside and didn't protect the inside of the plate. It was a mismatch.
| By conniemacha on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 07:35 pm:|
I think we should be questioning the Long move instead of the Melhuse move. Adam had been huge for us late in the year and obviously Macha though he had more magic left in him.
Long had been abismal all year and Menechino had shown a much better penchant for getting on base. Plus if we had have scored a run, I don't like our chances with a Melhuse, Chavez, Tejada and Long third to first combo. Of course I'm probably the only one on this board who'll support Frank Menechino.
| By ronc on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 07:35 pm:|
...plus they were walking Dye
| By chris_d on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 09:06 pm:|
But that's the point, Conniemacha. The two ABs are connected. If you leave Dye in, then you've saved Melhuse (instead of TLong) to bat for Menechino and you remove TLong entirely from the equation. I agree with you that TLong should have been nowhere near the plate that inning.
| By conniemacha on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 09:29 pm:|
Fair enough. I'm only saying I had no gripes with Macha that inning until the Long move.
| By renobill on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 10:19 pm:|
I said it right after it happened and after much reflection, I haven't changed my opinion.
Macha made two mistakes:
1. Leaving in Zito too long in the sixth.
2. Pinch hitting for your veteren, RBI-producing, leading money making, something-to-proving, 2 run homering (previous game), clutch hit in the division clinching, Jermaine Dye.
The repercussion from the second mistake will be felt next season as well unless Beane trades Dye.
It is my opinion that the silver lining is that, the bonehead move by Macha creates pressure for BB to deal Dye, thus freeing up money for Miggy and Foulke.
You know that BB will find a taker for JD's contract even if he has to juice the deal with a AAA guy or two.
I wish JD well. He, and the team, were jobbed by Macha on Dye's last 2003 AB. I think JD may very well bounce back but his better days are behind him.
| By asch on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 10:52 pm:|
More importantly with Dye, they say Melhuse was brought in cause he had a good game the day before with 3 hits etc.... Great.
Didn't dye have a homer the day before. Dye is worth atleast a sac fly....in fact, that's what he normally does. He normally hits fly ball outs, sometimes there are people on base leading to a sac fly rbi, sometimes there is no one on base.
| By calig on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 12:04 am:|
Those are Dye's career stats vs Lowe-
Would you rather have a career 0.167 hitter vs Lowe bat or an unknown like Melhuse bat? Tough decision.
It is at least debatable, and maybe this shouldn't be considered a Macha mistake.
Taking Zito out too late... probably, but not this.
| By ronc on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 12:20 am:|
They were walking Dye. Singleton would have been at the plate
"The Red Sox knew as much and were prepared to intentionally walk the big right fielder. Manager Grady Little had given the signal. Shortstop Nomar Garciaparra had moved into position, backing up the pitcher. "
| By calig on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 01:09 am:|
In the interview, Beane disputes whether there was a "signal".
| By deajay on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 08:40 am:|
"TLong should have been nowhere near the plate that inning."
TLong was hitting .294 against Lowe. Hindsight is great, but compared to what the other guys were doing against Lowe, the move was not a bad one. Conversely, the move to PH for Dye was beyond ridiculous. But then so is this manager.
Those are Dye's career stats vs Lowe-
those are not career stats against Lowe, they are this year's and based on 18 ABs...
and the same goes for Long's stats against Lowe...
both are small samples and even though Dye's BA against Lowe was much lower than Long's...one player (Dye) had shown to be finally recovered from injury while the other had been relegated to being a 4th outfielder and had not played regularly...
Batting averages are very nice but there are other factors that should be considered when you have a championship series on the line in the ninth inning.
Macha went strictly by the numbers and it backfired on him...there is much more to a player and batter than a batting average. A great manager knows that and runs with it...the bad ones don't.
| By deajay on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 11:52 am:|
Well, and let's also add that one of the reasons Macha pinchhit Melhuse is because he had three hits the prior day. Funny ... guess he forgot that Dye had two, including his team's only HR in the postseason.
Beane disputes there was a signal?!? From his seat on the exercise bike or in the video room he's that sure? Not like I'd expect Beane to say he saw them getting ready to walk Dye anyway, this is his hand picked genius manager he'd be questioning. If it were Howe, Beane would have probably said something different....
If it were so all fired important to have Melhuse's bat against Lowe, since he was so hot and all...why didn't he start against Lowe instead of Hernandez? You certainly could make the case that he was hotter than Hernandez coming into game 5.
| By deajay on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 07:43 pm:|
Actually, bailey, I said before the lineup was posted that Melhuse should have been at DH, Durazo at first and Hatteberg on the bench, against Pedro. And I still think that.
Wasn't Dye getting an IBB the whole point? Melhuse can then hit for Long or Singleton, and Dye stays in the game.
How can you not go with the veteran in the ultimate pressure packed situation? I'd rather go down with the failing of the highest paid player, rather than a career minor league.
Monte Poole has it right. Do you have a link to that column? I'd like to check it out.
| By deajay on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 08:03 pm:|
Yes, Monte Poole does have it right. go to oaklandtribune.com the A's and you'll find his column.
| By eyleenn on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 08:03 pm:|
Jack Curry of the NY Times has it right also.
October 12, 2003
Once Again, the A's Saw Their Shadow
By JACK CURRY
he Oakland Athletics lost in the first round of the playoffs for the fourth straight season when they lost to the Boston Red Sox in their American League division series. Along the way, the bumbling A's also lost their seventh, eighth and ninth consecutive clinching games as they failed to close out the Red Sox with one elusive victory in an exasperating three-of-five-game series.
"It's kind of like `Groundhog Day' around here," General Manager Billy Beane said.
Beane might have seemed jocular, but he was disappointed. The A's showed themselves to be a postseason team with too many flaws while dropping three straight to Boston. They ran the bases with the abandon of Little Leaguers, they fielded the ball with the same sloppiness and their hitting approach with runners on base was dreadful.
After taking a 2-0 lead in the series, the A's were left to try to explain how a team that is so successful in the regular season can fade so quickly in the playoffs. While Beane has often described the postseason as a "crapshoot," even a blindfolded gambler would probably win at least one time in nine chances.
But the A's are zero for nine in attempts to march to the next round, a zero that might not exist if Eric Byrnes and Miguel Tejada had made shrewd base-running decisions in a wild Game 3 and a zero that might not exist if the A's had been a better-prepared and sounder team.
Instead, the A's neglect fundamentals while stressing the importance of doing anything and everything to get on base. The nine straight losses in clinching games are a record.
"We're not going to have a perfect team," Beane said. "So far, with what we've been able to put together, it hasn't been able to happen for us."
Beane has prided himself on building an inexpensive contender (the A's had one of the lowest payrolls in Major League Baseball again this season at $57 million).
But as Beane answered questions about how the A's had crumbled for the fourth straight season, he said he would promise a berth in the A.L. Championship Series if the team had a $100 million payroll. Beane made this vow in the losing clubhouse, making the timing as awkward as the words.
"It was more of a defense of the accomplishments of our team," Beane said. "I said, `O.K., if you give me the money, I'll guarantee it.' It was more of a response to a question. It was taken out of context. I've never used that as an excuse. It was a defense of the team."
Steve Schott, Oakland's owner, apparently saw it differently.
He rebuked Beane in The San Jose Mercury News and reminded him that he knew the A's payroll and, if he did not like it, he could have taken the job he initially accepted with Boston. Schott disagreed with Beane's view and said, "I think our mistakes cost us the series."
For Beane, it was another season when the A's worked magic during the regular season and saw it vanish in a depressing postseason. It felt repetitive, like "Groundhog Day."
"I don't say that we've had bad luck," Beane said. "At the end of the season, I say we got beat in five games. It's been five games every year. We haven't been quite good enough."
| By eyleenn on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 08:06 pm:|
BD, here's the link:
| By ws9 on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:16 pm:|
Ronc, you are right I was sitting in the third deck and even I knew they were going to walk Dye. In fact, I assumed they would walk Melhuse too, but they obviously gambled succesfully on getting the rookie out.
I've been moanin to Robert Buan for two seasons now that the A's don't have enough discipline and professionalism. Good to see Poole picking up the same theme. A's will never have the Yanks money, but I like the Yanks attitude - winning is second only to breathing. An attitude like that puts us in the ALCS 3 years running....
| By sactodavey on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 09:16 pm:|
Wrong bleacher Dave, puts them in ALCS 1 yr running remember a team called the Calif angels??
but they are in it 5-6 yrs not bad.
| By okplayer on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 03:47 pm:|
what do u mean sacto? BD's saying we would have made it to the ALCS, which woulda been the case had we not been chokers. no one's saying we woulda beat the halos