The Baseball Book Club discussion

Our July 2019 book of the month is Astroball by Ben Reiter. I decided to post the thread now in case anyone decided to get started over the weekend. This one looks like it should be interesting so I hope that we get a good discussion going.

Ordered my copy of the ebook from the library this morning. Should get it next week.

Ben Reiter liked my review. I haven’t posted it yet because I know not everyone has gotten to the book yet. I just messaged him to see if he would join us in the group as a q and a. Keeping my hopes up about this.

I am about halfway and really enjoying this. Unless it goes south jn a hurry, I think Mr. Reiter will like my review as well.

I finished it this morning - just wrote my review. Here is the link:

https://sportsbookguy.blogspot.com/20...

Couple thoughts - one, I REALLY appreciated the fact that Luhnow and co. don't dismiss the value of scouting and the human factors like Moneyball did. The book wasn't too bad on that, but the movie was really casting scouts in a bad light and that was uncalled for IMO.

Second, I thought Mr. Reiter did a great job of personalizing the book with the various stories. I really enjoyed the story of the Verlander trade (impressed that Luhnow still went on his dinner date with his wife) and Majdal's time as a black jack dealer and the concept of hitting with a 16 when the dealer holds a 7 instead of holding.

Just a start to get it going - will add more as others join in.

As I read this and saw how the Astros value the human element in baseball, I’ve come to the realization that the Astros are built for sustained success and the Cubs are not. And by the way in 10 years Houston will pass up Chicago as the third largest city in the US. I enjoyed the cultural background featuring Judge Hofheinz as well as it gave the team more perspective.

To get this one going again as many have read it, Harold brought up a great part of the book - the section on the Justin Verlander trade and how it was completed with seconds to spare. It was my favorite part of the whole book as read like a thriller.

Yeah, I thought this was a great book and wrote as such. I do think Beltran will be the next great manager at some point. He's working for the Yankees now (as a skipper-in waiting in case Aaron Boone falls short) but at some point, a smart club will make a play for his dugout services.

Dave wrote: "Yeah, I thought this was a great book and wrote as such. I do think Beltran will be the next great manager at some point. He's working for the Yankees now (as a skipper-in waiting in case Aaron Boo..."
Yes it makes me laugh when analysts down play leadership and team bonding. Beltran is certainly a great example of that in 2017. Maybe Jason Heyward but more so David Ross in 2016 . In fact as Reiter cited, there was a study done by two economists and a professor about chemistry and leadership. They called it the david Ross effect.

Brina wrote: "As I read this and saw how the Astros value the human element in baseball, I’ve come to the realization that the Astros are built for sustained success and the Cubs are not. And by the way in 10 ye..."
I thought the chapter on Carlos Correa was great too. That determination and commitment is rare among young guys who get distracted by having fun.

Not just Correa. But the human element behind the computers. When team interviewing managers and they asked Hinch questions in terms of showing GM the daily lineup, and telling him to go with his gut. The Cubs I know don’t go with their gut at all. Maddon and Theo are obsessed with analytics. That is why Astros are built to last- Correa, Springer, and Bregman still young with 2 prospects in minors- whereas the Cubs are not.

The human aspect is why I like the "Astroball" approach much better than the "Moneyball" approach. Lundhow and his staff always try to find that right balance of analytics as well as human factors. Dave is right - Beltran will make a terrific manager.

But the only major gut decision they made was to forgoe the prospects and get Verlander. They refused to allow scouts to rely on their gut. That's why they created an analytic system to check the accuracy of the scout's evals and gut. The difference between the Cubs and Astros is the latter had the worst record in baseball for three years in a row and got 3 one-on one picks. Bregman was actually a 2nd pick in the first round because Brady Aiken didn't sign. The Cubs traded Gleybor Torres to get Chapman to win it all. Now they are paying the price. They also over valued Schwarber and Russell but their goal was to win a championship for the city. If the Astros hadn't gotten Verlander, they probably don't beat the Yankees and don't get a ring. Some of it is timing and luck.

The story of Brady Aiken was both interesting and sad

Harold wrote: "But the only major gut decision they made was to forgoe the prospects and get Verlander. They refused to allow scouts to rely on their gut. That's why they created an analytic system to check the a..."

The human element we are referring to is more about team chemistry and communication, not necessarily what a scout’s gut says. I don’t think Moneyball ever touched on that

Lance wrote: "Harold wrote: "But the only major gut decision they made was to forgoe the prospects and get Verlander. They refused to allow scouts to rely on their gut. That's why they created an analytic system..."
BUT Theo brought in David Ross for that very reason too.

Yes about Aiken. Never made it to the big leagues. Tragic. I am glad they have Bregman. I have a Jewish star to root for and that’s why I’ve latched on to Astros somewhat despite my husband’s AL rooting interest.

Harold wrote: "Lance wrote: "Harold wrote: "But the only major gut decision they made was to forgoe the prospects and get Verlander. They refused to allow scouts to rely on their gut. That's why they created an a..."

I was thinking Oakland and Moneyball, not the Cubs as that is well documented in The Cubs Way

Lance wrote: "The story of Brady Aiken was both interesting and sad"

Aiken is another example of the dangers of the MLB draft. Tanking or dumping stars to get high draft picks may or may not work because of signability issues and, especially with pitchers, injuries. Like the guy this year that went to Japan or the Reds teenager from 2 or 3 years ago that blew his arm out already. It's a crapshoot.

Chemistry is so important but is almost impossible to define or plan. Obviously you can avoid the Milton Bradleys and Joey Belles of the world, but sometimes perfect chemistry just happens. It also helps when everyone is playing good and hitting is certainly contagious.

I was thinking about that last night driving home from our softball games. Last year our team had a perfect combination of good guys; we had a blast every week joking on the bench (I told my daughter, even the jokes are funnier when you are winning) and we only lost 2 games over the last 3 months.

This year, they shuffled teams a little because we won so many and our team still had some good guys, but we just didn't seem to have as much fun--the mojo was just a little off. We were definitely mediocre and struggled to be .500.

The fall season started 2 weeks ago and with the addition of 2 guys and the subtraction of 2 others, suddenly the magic is back--we're 4 and 0. Last night some of the same guys who weren't that good in June and July were getting hits every time and pulling out plays in the field they hadn't made in years. It's contagious; but mercurial and impossible to plan. You just enjoy it when it happens.

Doug wrote: "Chemistry is so important but is almost impossible to define or plan. Obviously you can avoid the Milton Bradleys and Joey Belles of the world, but sometimes perfect chemistry just happens. It also..."

That's the thing about David Ross. He is universally viewed now as a perfect team guy and chemistry maestro. But he played for the Reds for 2 years and there was little mention of this because the team sucked.

Also, he languished for 15 years without his chemistry turning up a championship before he suddenly struck gold. Had he gone to some other lousy teams instead of the ones that won, no one would ever consider him to be the poster child of chemistry.

Minority opinion here. I think chemistry is so overrated. Every year in every sport when a team is pronounced champions, the first thing we here is what great chemistry they have. Well what happens the next year when you don’t repeat? Was it bad chemistry? Maybe I think this way because I grew up with the A’s throwing punches at each other then going out and winning games. The Yankees of the 70s were the same way, not to mention the Dodgers.

Mike wrote: "Minority opinion here. I think chemistry is so overrated. Every year in every sport when a team is pronounced champions, the first thing we here is what great chemistry they have. Well what happens..."
The Phillies players from the 2009 reunion all attributed chemistry as a major factor to their winning too. I think it exists. I think the A's had the common bond of hatred for Charley Finley and that overrode personal animosity. The same could be said of the early 60's Dodgers against O'Malley and Bavasi. A simialr argument could be made for George Steinbrenner's Yankees.I think if you look at work places the same phenomena exists. If you are happy with your coworkers, my experience is that you work more productively. It's like the chicken or the egg : it's hard to prove with hard evidence. Still, if so many players ascribe chemistry as a major factor, it seems to me anecdotally we must respect it as a factor.

Phils optioned Franco
Mike Linn

Michael Linn wrote: "Phils optioned Franco
Mike Linn"
Yes I heard it whne they announced it pre-game. It was a shock to most fans but they have several outfielders and the kid Kingery is better than Franco and it allows them to play Cutch next year with Harper and Haseley.

Mike wrote: "Minority opinion here. I think chemistry is so overrated. Every year in every sport when a team is pronounced champions, the first thing we here is what great chemistry they have. Well what happens..."

And Jerry Kramer always talked about the great love and chemistry on the Packers teams. The question is which comes first, the winning or the chemistry. When you are losing, chemistry is one of the first things to dissolve--no one wants to hear about how much fun the players have or how much they like each other when they are losing.

Winning makes everyone happy and more tolerant.

But I think maybe bad chemistry can prevent a good team from winning better than good chemistry can make a championship team out of a bunch of mediocre players.

Anyone other than me interested in downgrading their review?

Yea, it was a suck up book in retrospect

Harold wrote: "Yea, it was a suck up book in retrospect"

All suckup books look worse over time.

Both this one and another one I read on the '17 Astros - Hurricane Season: The Unforgettable Story of the 2017 Houston Astros and the Resilience of a City

Another call for the Astros to cough up their 2017 trophy. This is well worth reading. It's by Bill Plaschke who you may know from ESPN.
"https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodger...

I guess I'll pass on that book.

The author of the book is developing a true crime podcast around the Astros' scandal, which has plans to turn into a TV series as well.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...

Albert wrote: "The author of the book is developing a true crime podcast around the Astros' scandal, which has plans to turn into a TV series as well.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new......" Good find Albert

I'm new to this community, so I may have missed this. I'm curious what the consensus or thoughts about Astroball have been that would require a rebuttal (as mentioned in the other thread) or a re-review?

Is it fair to re-read / revise our thoughts about a book in light of what we know what happened two years later? Opinions of books undoubtedly change overtime in light of history, especially when a big scandal comes out that undermines the alleged success/in-roads a baseball team made during that time. As a bit of a meta-discussion, I'm wondering if that's fair in this case, and/or if parts of the book may have highlighted certain organizational behavior or clubhouse/team culture that make more sense now with the passage of time.

Albert wrote: "I'm new to this community, so I may have missed this. I'm curious what the consensus or thoughts about Astroball have been that would require a rebuttal (as mentioned in the other thread) or a re-r..."

That's a good point Albert.

Personally, I don't like any of the never-ending "way" books that come out every year. . . the Cardinals Way, the Cubs Way, the Ripken Way, the Astros Way. Each year a different team wins it all and someone writes a book touting them as the "way" of the future and the owners of a secret that will give them a dynasty. And then next year, they don't.

I realize the main reason for these books is to sell as many as possible to new found bandwagon jumpers before the next year when some other franchise seemingly comes up with the new way (of course they do have a little bit of a point, no one wants to read about the way that the Reds came up with to finish in last 6 times in a row).

That being said, my initial reaction to looking back at the Astros book was one of disdain for their hypocrisy and to enjoy poking fun of their lies. Obviously, their "way" was a bit more than the author allowed (maybe he knew and maybe he didn't depending on how much access he had). But it might be fun also to look for hints, knowing what we know now.

I'll add one other tidbit - the "way" books only work for large market/money/popular teams. Yes, it did for the Cardinals, Cubs, Astros, etc. But we sure didn't see a ton of books for the Royals "way", even though their three-headed bullpen monster has led to the current plethora of relief pitchers on every team.

Lance wrote: "I'll add one other tidbit - the "way" books only work for large market/money/popular teams. Yes, it did for the Cardinals, Cubs, Astros, etc. But we sure didn't see a ton of books for the Royals "w..."
That's a good point because they were built on the three headed monster, defense, and speed. An oddity in today's game.

Lance wrote: "I'll add one other tidbit - the "way" books only work for large market/money/popular teams. Yes, it did for the Cardinals, Cubs, Astros, etc. But we sure didn't see a ton of books for the Royals "w..."

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a book on the Twins way--they did their share of damage last year Lance.

Also a one on the 1965 Twins way. Did you ever get The Cool of the Evening book?

No, I never did as when I checked Amazon they wanted $40. Little too rich for my blood and of course I am not going to find it in libraries in upstate NY

Lance wrote: "No, I never did as when I checked Amazon they wanted $40. Little too rich for my blood and of course I am not going to find it in libraries in upstate NY"

Took a look on amazon.ca and there are some decently priced copies from used book dealers.

Doug wrote: "Lance wrote: "I'll add one other tidbit - the "way" books only work for large market/money/popular teams. Yes, it did for the Cardinals, Cubs, Astros, etc. But we sure didn't see a ton of books for..."

Isn't that the title of a Bing Crosby song?

Doug wrote: "Lance wrote: "I'll add one other tidbit - the "way" books only work for large market/money/popular teams. Yes, it did for the Cardinals, Cubs, Astros, etc. But we sure didn't see a ton of books for..."

Oh - maybe a Twins Way book after the 2020 season - when they finally take that next step.

Seems to me there are only three ways to win a championship
1. Spend lots of money on free agents
2. Draft smart
3. A bit of both of the above.
oh yes, some luck helps as well.

C. John wrote: "Seems to me there are only three ways to win a championship
1. Spend lots of money on free agents
2. Draft smart
3. A bit of both of the above.
oh yes, some luck helps as well."

Of course the confounding thing is that there are many teams who do both 1 and 2 and still don't win. So number 3 seems to be very important as well. Or maybe timing and not luck. And no injuries. And good chemistry. And develop those draft picks and have them tied up so they don't bolt the first time Scott Boras' nose itches.

It's funny in looking back but Ben Reiter praised the organizations creation of a Director of Decision Sciences and Big data. It turns out that he really meant Director of trash can science and other ways to cheat.

"trash can science" - LOL!

That Director of Decision Sciences is now an Assistant GM for the Orioles, btw

Albert wrote: "That Director of Decision Sciences is now an Assistant GM for the Orioles, btw"
Who? Sig Mejdal? He must have gotten an advanced degree in trash can science.

PS I forgot to mention this, but Ben reiter is already writing a follow up book on Astroball which will include the scandal and its consequences. Hence I think Brina we have been superceded.