Debate: Do 2010 Giants Owe a Bit of Gratitude to 2001 A's?

We said from the beginning we'd like more content like this, and sadly it hasn't quite happened yet. But with the upcoming 3 game set between the Giants and A's in Oakland, and with the release of the Moneyball trailer, something inside us burst. It was time to talk frankly about the real impact of Beane's strategy in the early 2000s. It started as an off-handed comment, and launched into one of our best debates ever. See below for a reformatted and slightly edited transcript of the conversation. What do you think?

Eric: Can we say that the 2010 Giants do not exist without the 2001 A's?

Frankie: Oh hell no. The 2001 A's can't claim credit for every rag tag team that comes after them. Like an underdog never won a damn championship before... not that the A's did that or anything. Beane was a visionary and he had some good years, but look at the larger picture here. You now have a team with no stars, no fan base, and no players for a fan base to rally around because you sell them off as soon as they're good and try and sign nobodies and hope it works out; which it hasn't for the last 5 years.

Who is the face of the A's? Cahill? Kurt? Bailey? Crisp? Nay, who is the most memorable A of the last 5 years? The most "iconic"?

E: The A's have had nothing since 2006. However, they've finally entered rebuild.
The faces of the A's are Cahill, Gio, Anderson, Kurt, and Bailey.

F: How many of those guys will be A's in 3 years?

E: All, except possibly Gio. Cahill, Anderson, and Kurt are signed through minimum 2014.

But, getting back to it, Beane's plan worked from 2000-2006, and many other GM's, like Brian Sabean copied it to success. They problem was Beane got greedy by 2006 and broke form (especially with Matt Holliday) and they haven't recovered.

F: Sabean didn't copy Beane. Sabean's been running that team for 15 years and they won that title on homegrown pitching...

E: Which was part of Beane's plan...

F: ...and the only other time they came close they won it on Barry Bonds, which is the exact antithesis of Beane's theory. Paying the big free agent and paying more, like Jeff Kent and J.T. Snow.

And what? You think Billy Beane is the only GM in baseball that wants to develop young pitching?!? I'm pretty sure that's everyone's goal.

E: Sabean put together 2010 like beane put together 2001

F: What Beane would have done was trade Lincecum before his arbitration years were up and sign about 10 shitty infield prospects.

E: Bullshit.

F: I just don't see how you can look at the 2010 Giants and say, hey they copied Billy Beane because they developed young pitching...

E: ...and signed a band of misfits with high OBP sprinkled with a couple young guys.

F: Yeah because Pat Burrell has such a high OBP.

E: He does historically I believe.

I think my original point here, though I didn't quite articulate it, was that Beane revolutionized how baseball talent is evaluated.

F: You look at about 20 of the last World Series champions and I bet you can say they have young pitching, with some mid-season acquisitions sprinkled with young players.

E: And you cannot take that away from them...

F: Yes, he revolutionized valuing talent. I get that. I respect that

E: So that's what I'm saying. The 2010 giants do not exist without 2001 Billy Beane.

F: That's grade A bullshit. Billy Beane did not invent drafting young pitchers and bringing them up. He did not invent signing veterans. He did not invent calling up a catcher in May. Should Billy Beane really get credit for any team that wins with young pitching and scrappy veterans? Had that NEVER happened before??

E: No, but you can't say that something that revolutionized the way baseball talent was viewed had no effect on the rest of the game.

F: He did it a new way. That's not to say everyone now does it that way and that everything that happens from then on is because of him.

E: I'm saying its a piece of the larger puzzle. And I bet if you ask Sabean how he put that team together and what he looked for he would tip his hat to Billy Beane.

F: You let me know when you ask him and tell me what he says. The Giants still had like the 10th largest payroll in baseball last year.

Eric: For any gm to say that Billy Beane's a's didnt change the game is a load of crap.

F: I read Moneyball. It was fascinating. I'm just not sure what a revolution it is if it only worked for 5 years and doesn't work anymore while teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies are now dominating

E: It didnt stop working. Beane broke the mold. The high payroll teams are always going to win. The trick is for the low ones to stay competitive and what the a's were able to do was unprecedented.

F: Fine, I can live with that. Just don't tell me the 2010 Giants have to suck the A's teat. I think if the 2001 A's didn't exist the Giants can still win a championship. And chances are it would have been in 2002, because 9 times out of 10 Scott Spiezio doesn't hit that home run.

E: Sure, I just don't think it necessarily comes together as poetically as it did. I mean, the 03 Marlins are another, the 08 Rays are another, 07 Rockies just got hot.... You're right. It's not just Billy... but just look at the stat revolution. That's billy's doing in so many ways.

F: OK, but let's go back BEFORE 2001: 95 Braves, 92 Pirates. Young pitching. Developing prospects. All I'm saying is that I bet someone who was older than 5 year old in 1991 could list teams that looked mighty similar to the 2001 A's

E: Oh sure, it gets done. There have always been ragtag teams but the justification for them had been different.

F: So why are the Giants any different?

E: Because I think Beane changed the thinking.

F: To what?

E: The valuation of OBP and defense and the development of sabermetrics, which granted may have occurred anyway. But, to my knowledge, Beane was the first to use it to build a winning team. That's the difference. The idea of buying wins and buying runs rather than just getting good players.

F: Fair enough. I'm just not sure how the valuation of OBP spurred the Giants to a World Series. I think it had more to do with their pitching, actually

E: Maybe it didn't. But I'm willing to bet that Sabean and his scouts looked at those sabermetrics before signing Huff and when trading Alderman for Sanchez, and when deciding they could bring Posey up.

F: Yes, I'm sure he used sabermetrics in evaluating Huff, but you don't need to know sabermetrics to see Sanchez's .300 BA.

E: Of course not, but I bet his WAR is pretty out of control for his price.

F: Yes, you are right there, especially considering Alderman blows donkey balls.

E: I love you.

F: I love you.

---------------------------

So there you have it. What do you think? Even we didn't really reach an accord. Do the A's and Beane have any right to claim that they had an effect on roster building like that of the 2010 Giants? Or did it have no effect?