If anybody reads, check out "The Blind Side" by Michael Lewis. If you liked "Moneyball", you'll love it. Well written and a very captivating story.

_________________
"Tubby? Oh yes, Tubby."

You thought Moneyball was well written. I guess you must be into love stories.

Which love story? The fat catcher and the buffet line? Or Billy Beane with himself?

_________________
"Tubby? Oh yes, Tubby."

I am only half way through the book. I don't look at it as Beane in love with himself. While that may be the public side he displays, I think he secretly despises himself. He wants no player like himself and he surrounds himself with front office members who have achieved an academic status he was unable to achieve. My reading so far makes me think Lewis was taking bukkake facials from De Podesta, Beane, Riccardi and James like a pornstar on spanish fly.

I wasn't sure which angle you were taking there. I enjoyed the book because it outlines a team's philosophy so you get a look at how a front office picks it's players. In this case, the team is extremely successful with their strategy given their limited resources. It made me wonder many times what Hendry's strategy is. Coin flip? Dart Board?

That being said, The Blind Side was better than Moneyball.

_________________
"Tubby? Oh yes, Tubby."

I agree Coach, I think I may go purchase it for my flight this weekend....

_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. ~ Benjamin Franklin

I bought it at the airport. Is a quick read. Unfortunately I get very little time to read unless I am on a flight or vacation.

It is a quick read and it keeps your interest. Somethings you may disagree with, but it will at least make you wonder why other teams aren't implementing similar strategies.

_________________
"Tubby? Oh yes, Tubby."

That is the problem with the book Scott. It just accepts that this is the best way to evaluate and draft talent. Meanwhile in my 150 pages I have seen the A's pass on Jeremy Bonderman and underrate Scott Kazmir. I would take either of those players over the beloved Nick Swisher.

I think the book makes the A's front office seem arrogant because it is uncritical of it's methods. After reading about the 2002 draft I spent time scrambling around to look at some of those first round "steals".

Has anyone done an actual report card on how they have fared in talent evaluation.

gd, I found this at the Sporting News:

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=109959

_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Thanks MU. Looking at the reader criticisms someone brings up a point I was trying to make. There are other ways to effectively acquire talent on the cheap. I would think a strong scouting presence in non traditional or poor nations would get the same results the A's hope to have. While he would have to sign latin players at very young ages, they can be bought cheaply and schooled in a system for 5-10 years before being an acceptable MLB rookie age.

I'm not saying the book (and the A's system) is without flaws. But it is undeniable that their system has worked for them, and that they've been able to adapt by finding value elsewhere when Teams have shifted towards placing a higher value on OBP guys.

_________________
"Tubby? Oh yes, Tubby."

I know you are not. My criticism is more with Lewis' uncritical acceptance of everything and lack of perspective of other succesfull methods.

Agreed.

_________________
"Tubby? Oh yes, Tubby."