Rock Co., I keep finding myself writing contrary posts to you the past few days -- please know it's not personal. You just make your points clearly and with good detail, which gives those of us who might respectfully disagree with you a lot to chew on Thanks for the post. Absolutely not personal. I argue with the folks on here the same way as I do my friends at the bar. I will fully admit that I'm a tad overbearing, 'old school', set in my ways and stubborn (see my lengthy debates about the value of 'taking a walk'). Though I may come off in text as a 'know it all', I try not to. I am by no means a baseball expert, as attested by my record in fantasy baseball (though if Rich Harden and Jake Peavy ever bounce back in the same season, look out...) I try to admit when I was wrong, (Randy Wolf) but don't do so nearly as much as I do when I was right (probably 10 percent of my posts have been dealing with Suppan/Riske). At any rate, I will fully admit that I have a preference for the 'baseball card stats' that I grew up with. I also dig the long ball, probably undervalue defense and overvalue any player who came up through the Brewers system... however I have no faith in prospects until they produce. I blame these things mostly on the fact that I was scarred by the Gorman Thomas trade and the fiasco that followed the next few years. Back to the Beane thing. I will admit I've never read the book, I was aware that it was written by someone else- wasn't sure if it was a ghost writer or not. Even though he didn't write it, I don't think that you can deny that the book has enhanced Beane's reputation. Personally, I just feel that Beane was in the right place at the right time. He inherited a ton of good (though perhaps 'enhanced') guys like Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, Hudson, etc. in a weak division. He did score huge with Zito and Mulder, I'll give him that, but he was very lucky that those guys were so good, so fast. It would have been fairly unprecedented for one guy to make the jump so fast from college, let along two. The stat theories are interesting, but would Beane have had the same success had he taken over the Brewers at the same time he took over the A's? I doubt it. I feel the same way about Theo Epstein. What has he done that Brian Cashman has not (played with an expensive toy)? Bottom line, championships are won on the field, not in Baseball America, Fangraphs, etc. The A's W/L pct. under Beane the past 5 years is roughly the same the Brewers had under the last 5 years of Bando's regime. Beane keeps making interesting moves, but the results aren't there, and almost inevitably we get the same 'payroll limitation' excuse that Bando used.